Add process document for managing reviews

[NickleDave]

As discussed with @lwasser in Slack

We should note the following:

• label a pre-submission with submission-requested if that is the status
• when an editor has been found (e.g., through slack by email), assign them the issue. then we know it has an editor!
• add new pre-submissions to the project board (until such time as this is automated)
• when reviews are waiting for a maintainer response, e.g. while addressing issues spotted during the initial editor checks, add the pending maintainer response label

[sneakers-the-rat]

Some additional notes:

• Need note on when to remove New Submission! tag. I assume this is removed before 1/editor-checks but not mentioned in guide as far as I can tell
• The docs are thorough! but they are a bit difficult to read since there are so many top-level ToC items and each step has a different format. Recommend making three top-level ToC items: Editor Description, Editor Checklist, and Alternative Paths. The titles are also pretty conversational which adds to noise when trying to skim ToC.

So maybe current structure:

• Experience needed to become an editor
• Two types of editors
  • Guest Editors
  • "Full" Editors
• What does an editor do? (Responsibilities)
• Editor support of other reviews
• Editor-in-Chief rotation
• How long does an editor serve on the editorial board?
• Editor checklist: Get Started With Leading a Package Review
  • ✔️ 1. First, tag the submission issue on GitHub
  • ✔️ 2. Respond to the submitter in the GitHub issue
  • ✔️ 3. Identify scientific Python package reviewers
  • ✔️ 4. Onboard reviewers
• Editor responsibilities during the review
  • ✔️ 5. What to do when reviews are in
• Putting a review on hold & handling non-responsive authors
  • ✔️ 6. How to accept a package into the pyOpenSci ecosystem
• Closing notes about the editorial process
• ✔️ OPTIONAL: Instructions for Submitting to JOSS
• Last Steps Before Closing the Review Issue

can become something like this (sorry github markdown is transforming my numbers to letters)

• Editor Description
  • Types of Editors
  • Editor Responsibilities
    • Lead Reviews
    • Support Other Reviews
    • EiC Rotation
• Editor Checklist
  • 1. Editor Checks
  • 2. Seek Reviewers
  • 3. Onboard Reviewers
  • 4. Coordinate Review
  • 5. Complete Review
• Alternative Paths
  • Nonresponsive Authors
  • Nonresponsive Reviewers
  • Submitting to JOSS

[sneakers-the-rat]

"Onboarding editors & reviewers" and "Finding reviewers" is located in multiple places. Recommend consolidating to one place :)

• Onboarding editors & reviewers
  • https://www.pyopensci.org/software-peer-review/how-to/onboarding-guide.html
  • https://www.pyopensci.org/software-peer-review/how-to/editors-guide.html#onboard-reviewers - this section should link to previous link
• Finding reviewers
  • https://www.pyopensci.org/software-peer-review/how-to/finding-reviewers.html
  • https://www.pyopensci.org/software-peer-review/how-to/editors-guide.html#identify-scientific-python-package-reviewers

This section is also duplicated as a section title and a page title, which makes me think that maybe "Editor" guide needs to be a section with multiple pages (as i assume all of them eventually will need to be:

• Editor Guide
  • Position Description
  • Review Checklist
  • Finding Reviewers
  • Onboarding Reviewers

[lwasser]

ok there are a lot of issues opened about the editor guide. i am on a plan on sunday - and planes are great places to work on things like this so maybe i can tackle a draft of an editor page reorg. i was thinking something similar @sneakers-the-rat after reading the other issues - position description, review checklist etc.

at a minimum we can start with just reorganizing the page that way.