Hi, everyone! Happy 2022! This should possibly also be posted in the Tooling category, I’m not sure how to do that :slight_smile: . In the review process in the CKM I’ve encountered some issues that has to be discussed. I could have just asked for a change in the CKM functionality, but would like …

Hi Vebjørn, We do need to register people because there is not usually just a single contact. Often there is more than one review for a project etc. And there are many reasons we need the data, to discern how many people are reviewing and that there are not duplicates, to ask a question of the revi…

I agree with Heather’s assertion that we do need to register people. But at the same time, the fear of being spammed is understandable, and to a certain degree well founded. Currenly reviewer availability is a binary on/off choice for each user, and global for the whole CKM. Would it be possible, a…

The trade-off with making registration so specific is it requires or assumes an understanding of projects and reviews etc. If the registration process for a newbie is already potentially confusing/convoluted/difficult ie a turn-off in any way then this will only add to the level of difficulty. May…

[image] heather.leslie: The trade-off with making registration so specific is it requires or assumes an understanding of projects and reviews etc. I agree. My suggestion would be relevant mostly where people are specifically recruited for very specific projects, under close editor support. …

I think Vebjørn has a really good point here. I do understand the objections from a governance point of view, but this is about the user perspective and their needs as reviewers. It is a barrier to reach enough of the right people for reviews, so changes are needed that support both end-users and a…

[image] Asa_Skagerhult: needs as reviewers Of course, we could set the system up to a light touch email invitation to a reviewer, assuming we fully understand the reviewer requirements and there is consensus on ‘light touch’ requirements. The reviewer could respond and we have another review.…

I remember from signing up to CKM I found it not too frictionless, it was exciting and I was looking for a way to contribute. But others who come for a more onetime experience it may be off putting. I myself also struggle to accept review invites because form the invites it’s hard to judge wether I…

[image] joostholslag: I myself also struggle to accept review invites because form the invites it’s hard to judge wether I’ve something meaningful to contribute. The email text is indeed very general, and I wish it could be a mix of the general part and something from the archetype or the spe…

Hi everyone Thank you for a good discussion and valuable input! (and it’s not over yet). [image] heather.leslie: consider the possibility of adding a (supposedly simple) CKM function to email a review request to an individual’s email. In turn, this prompts registration prior to commencing the …

The project-based sign-up link looks like a good option to explore for this. If the user accepts the invitation to the project as a reviewer (either by signing up to CKM or also via a project invitation if the user exists already), the user can then be invited as part of inviting all members of the…

Tooling support for inviting reviewers

Clinical

siljelb (Silje Ljosland Bakke) 19 January 2022 13:20 15

In practice, what you’re describing is the majority of people signing up, without clicking the box about reviews availability at all? I was thinking of them as a subgroup of #1. For #3, I was thinking about the people who actively uncheck the box, so the CKM will prevent us from inviting them.

Topic		Replies	Views
openEHR Transition: Community Knowledge repository Clinical (archive)	36	139	10 September 2011
Archetype versioning on CKM Clinical (archive)	31	100	16 June 2011
Request to join project as translation editor CKM	33	1116	24 June 2024
PARTY as 'regular' datatype Entity/demographics demographics	33	2134	23 November 2020
Text, descriptions and comments for value set items - mandatory or optional? Clinical	40	2353	3 June 2020
Question to vendors Implementation	12	686	25 October 2021
Medinfo 2010 Implementers (archive)	45	137	30 September 2009
Contradictions in Licensing and IP Acknowledge information Clinical	38	350	29 July 2026
Safety features in AQL: subject AQL aql	104	2798	28 November 2019
Heartbeat and Pulse Clinical archetype	39	1156	20 June 2024

Tooling support for inviting reviewers

Related topics