Allow the names of editorial decisions to be customized

[NateWr]

Describe the problem you would like to solve
In some cases a journal wants to use different names to describe its editorial decisions. For example they may want to change Request Revisions to Minor Revisions and Resubmit for Review to Major Revisions.

Describe the solution you'd like
Somewhere in the settings where the labels for these editorial decisions can be changed. New labels should be reflected where possible in email templates and other parts of the system.

Who is asking for this feature?
This is split from #1660 where it has been requested by a couple of institutional providers.

[NateWr]

My first question would be: which parts of this request can not already be done with the custom locale plugin?

[steveharoz]

@NateWr

My first question would be: which parts of this request can not already be done with the custom locale plugin?

Can you explain EXACTLY which file and which keys correspond to the reviewer options?

[NateWr]

@steveharoz look in locale.po for any locale keys that start with reviewer.article.decision.

[NateWr]

Sorry @steveharoz, those are the reviewer decision keys. The ones you want are in submission.po and start with editor.submission.decision.

[steveharoz]

@NateWr Thanks! Found it. But there doesn't seem to be any way of removing options using this approach, so it's not a complete fix. I made two of the options blank, but they are weirdly selectable, which might confuse reviewers.

[NateWr]

Yes, editor decisions can not be removed. You can see some discussion on this related to reviewer recommendations in #1660, which is why we split this issue (editor decisions) off into its own.

The short story is that editor decisions are closely tied to editorial stats and making them totally configurable would make it challenging to track these statistics accurately. Removing one might be easier than making them fully configurable, but we'd still have to think through the implications.

[steveharoz]

Interesting. Thanks. I can't speak for others, but for our journal, we're not interested OJS's reporting. In fact, I'd prefer all the reporting just be replaced with a "dump as CSV" or "dump as JSON" option. We just want a reviewing system that is flexible and customizable.