Update Editor Guidelines: DOI workflow

[rivaquiroga]

As discussed in #1684, Editor Guidelines should be updated to include the DOI request workflow.
This will only affect the ME checklist section.

@spapastamkou, @svmelton, I will write a draft, and reach you back for your review

[walshbr]

I might also change the text of the preceding Twitter bot section of the guidelines from

"link (column C) - the link to the lesson."

to

"link (column C) - the DOI for the lesson."

since we're now using the DOI's in the bot.

[rivaquiroga]

@spapastamkou, @svmelton, here is a proposal for the new step of the checklist. The three main points are: 1) be sure that everything is ok before requesting the DOI, 2) link to the stepts for requesting the DOI on the wiki, 3) how long this part of the process might take.
First I thought this should number 5 in our checklist, but now I realized that without the DOI the builds fails, so maybe is better to put it before "Confirm all links and YAML headers are functioning correctly"
@spapastamkou, you just went through the process. Is there anything else you think we might add or clarify?

---

4) Request DOI

Once you are sure that the submission meets all our publication guidelines and is ready to be published, you should request a new DOI for the lesson. The steps are describe in the How to Request a new DOI section of the Wiki.
This part of the process should not take you more than one or two days, depending on the time difference you have with the UK (UTC +1).

[mdlincoln]

Just a note that you can request the DOI early in the PR review process - Sussex only needs to know which publication is making a new lesson, they don't need the finalized metadata at that stage - it's only after you merge the PR that you email them to say the new lesson is published and then activated. That way you can put in the DOI early on and attend to other errors like broken links.

However, n.b. the DOI doesn't turn into an active link that can be tweeted until Sussex responds that they've successfully submitted the metadata to CrossRef - make sense?

[rivaquiroga]

I'm doing the request process right now for a new lesson, and it seems that starting the request as step 2) might be better.

---

2) Request DOI

Request a new DOI for the lesson following the steps described in the Wiki.
This part of the process should not take you more than one or two days, depending on the time difference you have with the UK (UTC +1).

[rivaquiroga]

@walshbr, what do do think about adding this update to #1844?

[walshbr]

That seems fine to me - you want pull requests to do a distinct thing, but it's also probably annoying to get multiple translation requests at the same time. We might as well combine them into one branch. If make the change on the branch that the pull request is using it should show up in the pull request feed. but let me know if it doesn't work.

Also note that we're not merging that in for a little while because the PT team is working on those files currently.

[svmelton]

Sorry for missing this earlier, but it looks good to me!

[walshbr]

Oh whoops…since this was a separate issue from the one that was meant to take care of, I think we finalized #1844 without accounting for this text. So we'll need to open a fresh pull request for it, yes?

[rivaquiroga]

@walshbr, you are right. I totally forgot about this too.

[walshbr]

Are you still good with this text @rivaquiroga?

2. Request DOI
   Request a new DOI for the lesson following the steps described in the Wiki.
   This part of the process should not take you more than one or two days, depending on the time difference you have with the UK (UTC +1).

I can throw it up on a PR if so.

[spapastamkou]

Add a precision that the build will initially fail until the editor will have added the DOI?