enh: eic overview page

Author: lwasser

how-to/editor-in-chief-guide.md

@@ -19,14 +19,14 @@ Here are some helpful resources to support you in your Editor in Chief role:
 
 The Editor in Chief (EiC) is a rotating position, typically selected from the
 current editorial team. It may also be held by a member of the broader
-pyOpenSci community who is familiar with our organization and software peer
+pyOpenSci community, who is familiar with our organization and software peer
 review.
 
 The EiC term lasts **3 to 6 months**, or another duration agreed upon with the
-Peer Review Lead. If the EiC needs to step down early, we request at least
+[Peer Review Lead (currently the Executive Director)](https://www.pyopensci.org/handbook/governance/structure.html#peer-review-lead). If the EiC needs to step down early, we request at least
 **two weeks’ notice** to allow time to identify and onboard a replacement.
 
-The Editor in Chief fulfills the  roles discussed below:
+The Editor in Chief fulfills the roles discussed below:
 
 ### 1. Manage incoming reviews
 
@@ -43,18 +43,17 @@ to stay up to date on new submissions.
 * Flag scope or overlap concerns. Raise questions by tagging editors in
   `#software-review` or, if needed, in `#private-editorial-team`.
 * Assign submissions to handling editors based on:
-  - subject matter fit
-  - editor availability
+  * subject matter fit
+  * editor availability
 
 > The EiC may assign a package to themselves if they have capacity and want to
 > lead the review.
 
 ### 2. Manage pre-submission inquiries
 
-* Respond to pre-submission inquiries and help assess scope or structure in
-  the `#software-review` Slack channel.
-* Handle or delegate review referrals from the Journal of Open Source Software
-  (JOSS) or other partners.
+* Respond to pre-submission inquiries and assess package scope or structure.
+* Handle or delegate review referrals from the [Journal of Open Source Software
+  (JOSS)](joss) or other partners.
 
 ### 3. Monitor review progress
 
@@ -70,12 +69,11 @@ The dashboard highlights:
 * Stale issues with no recent comments
 
 If a review has been inactive for 3–4 weeks, message the editor in Slack to
-check in. You or the peer review lead can help move things forward. If needed,
+check in. You or the [Peer Review Lead](https://www.pyopensci.org/handbook/governance/structure.html#peer-review-lead) can help move things forward. If needed,
 discuss in the `#private-editorial-team` channel.
 
 :::{tip}
-Need help unblocking a review? Contact the acting peer review lead (currently
-the Executive Director of pyOpenSci).
+Need help unblocking a review? Contact the acting Peer Review Lead.
 :::
 
 ### 4. Monitor package maintenance
@@ -95,7 +93,7 @@ responding to out-of-scope pre-submissions.
 :::
 
 :::{note}
-If the EiC has limited time to handle pre-review checks for a package, a conflict of interest, or lacks relevant expertise, they may ask another editor to perform initial checks on a package at any time.
+If the EiC has limited time to handle [pre-review checks](pre-review-checks) for a package, a conflict of interest, or lacks relevant expertise, they may ask another editor to perform initial checks on a package at any time.
 :::
 
 ## Editor in Chief checklist
@@ -127,6 +125,7 @@ existing community, please check below:
 ```
 
 (pre-review-checks)=
+
 ### 3. ✔️ Add the pre-review checks to the issue
 
 :::{important}
@@ -148,11 +147,13 @@ These checks confirm that the package meets the **minimum standards for
 review**. In many cases, going through this process improves the package itself.
 
 The EiC may ask another editor to complete the checks if:
+
 * They are overwhelmed with new submissions.
 * They are temporarily unavailable.
 * Another editor has relevant domain or technical expertise.
 
 (editor-checklist-template)=
+
 ### Editor-in-chief checklist
 
 Copy the template below and use it in the review issue.
@@ -176,7 +177,7 @@ Once the package is determined to be in scope, the pre-review surveys are comple
 are done, it's time to assign an editor.
 
 Use the [editorial dashboard](https://www.pyopensci.org/metrics/peer-review/editorial-dashboard.html)
-to check which editors are currently available.
+to check which editors are currently available and what domains those editors are familiar with.
 
 Once you’ve selected an editor:
 
@@ -185,8 +186,8 @@ Once you’ve selected an editor:
 3. Add the `1/editor-assigned` label to the issue
 
 :::{note}
-If no current editor with relevant expertise is available, work with the peer
-review lead to recruit a guest editor or onboard someone new.
+If there isn't an available editor with relevant expertise for a review, work with the [Peer
+Review Lead](https://www.pyopensci.org/handbook/governance/structure.html#peer-review-lead) to recruit a guest editor or onboard someone new.
 
 Follow the [onboarding guide](onboarding-guide.md), and complete the full
 [onboarding process](onboarding-a-new-editor) to ensure they have:
@@ -195,12 +196,13 @@ Follow the [onboarding guide](onboarding-guide.md), and complete the full
 * Slack access
 * Everything needed to manage the review
 
+[Share this document with any new editor to help them get started.](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UfG1Fe5wSiEAObvqNMT4etZ5sx7QXzW0f8mozKyK1NE/edit?tab=t.0)
+
 See the [editor guide](editors-guide.md) for more on an editor’s responsibilities. Once the editor is assigned, your
-work on the review is complete and they will now begin identifying reviewers.
+work on the review is complete, and they will now begin identifying reviewers.
 
 :::
 
-
 :::{admonition} Diversity in the editorial & reviewer  team is important
 :class: important
 
@@ -220,11 +222,11 @@ After assigning the editor to the issue and adding the `1/editor-assigned` label
 * Add any final comments to the bottom of your pre-review checklist comment
 
 :::{important}
-Be sure to update both the **GitHub assignment** and the **YAML header** with the editors name. Our peer
-review dashboard depends on both!
+Be sure to update both the **GitHub assignment** and the **YAML header** with the editor's name. Our [peer
+review dashboard](https://www.pyopensci.org/metrics/peer-review/current-review-status.html) depends on both!
 :::
 
-## A note about submissions that are incomplete or vague
+## Handling submissions that are incomplete or vague
 
 Sometimes a submission lacks enough information to assess whether it’s in
 scope. For example:
@@ -257,13 +259,50 @@ this issue how your package is "best in class." You can refer to our
 
 ```
 
+## Addressing challenges in the review process
+
+During the review, you may encounter challenges that require resolution.
+
+* For **technical issues** such as repository access, GitHub integration, or platform problems, post in the `#pyos-infrastructure` Slack channel where our technical team can assist you.
+
+* For **behavior concerns** including unprofessional communication, harassment, or guideline violations, use our [pyOpenSci Code of Conduct](https://www.pyopensci.org/handbook/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.html) as guidance. Follow the Code of Conduct reporting procedures and notify the Peer Review Lead of the issue.
+
+* For **conflicts of interest** involving financial, professional, or personal conflicts between reviewers and authors, you can post in the `private-editorial-channel` Slack channel or contact the Peer Review Lead directly if you prefer a more confidential approach.
+
+* For **all other questions** related to the review process, you can contact the Peer Review Lead for guidance and support.
+
+## Keeping the review process moving forward
+
+The pyOpenSci peer review metrics dashboard can help you keep tabs on review status.
+
+### Keeping track of reviews that need editors
+
+The [editors needed table](https://www.pyopensci.org/metrics/peer-review/current-review-status.html#editors-needed) and [reviewers needed table](https://www.pyopensci.org/metrics/peer-review/current-review-status.html#reviewers-needed) lists reviews that are still searching for editors and reviewers.
+
+### How to handle stalled reviews
+
+* [This table contains a list of all open reviews (and pre-review submissions).](https://www.pyopensci.org/metrics/peer-review/current-review-status.html#all-open-reviews). You can sort it by **last comment date** to understand better what reviews have been "quiet" and might need a nudge to move forward.
+
+If you notice that a review hasn't been active in over 1+ months, do the following:
+
+1. Leave a note on the review to see what the state of the review is.
+2. If no one responds to the comment within ~2 weeks, consider DM'ing the editor in the pyOpenSci Slack to see if they are still able to move the review forward.
+3. If a DM to the editor doesn't work, consider sending an email next. Oftentimes, people lose track of GitHub notifications, but they respond to emails.
+4. If all of the above fail and there is no movement on the review, post in the `#private-editorial-team` channel in our Slack, and the peer review lead can help you move things forward. In some cases, you may need to find a new editor who has more bandwidth to complete the review. In other cases, the editor will step back in and get things moving again.
+
+If you need to find a new editor, the [editors available for a review](https://www.pyopensci.org/metrics/peer-review/current-review-status.html#editors-available-for-a-review) lists editors that are not currently running a review.
+
+:::{tip}
+If the editor is struggling with reviewers not responding, see [the editor guide for more information on how to manage this](reviewer-response-time)
+:::
+
 ## Responding to out-of-scope submissions
 
 If a package is determined to be out of scope, thank the author for their
 submission, briefly explain why it is not in scope, and suggest other venues
 for review if relevant.
 
-Keep the conversation respectful and clear. If the author has questions,
+Keep the conversation respectful and transparent. If the author has questions,
 continue the discussion in the GitHub issue.
 
 ## Stepping down from the EiC role
@@ -272,10 +311,9 @@ As your term ends, help onboard the next Editor in Chief.
 
 * Set a calendar reminder 2–3 weeks before your term ends and begin to communicate with the incoming editor-in-chief about the transition.
 * Craft a summary of where peer review is, and where the incoming Editor in Chief will need to pick up.
-* Let the peer review lead know that a transition is coming soon so they can support as needed.
+* Let the Peer Review Lead know that a transition is coming soon so they can support as needed.
 * If you can, try to be available after your term has ended to answer questions and support a smooth transition for the new editor in chief
 
-
 :::{important}
 If you are leading any active reviews as EiC, you must hand them off to the
 incoming Editor in Chief before stepping down. This ensures continuity and
@@ -298,9 +336,10 @@ the peer review lead directly.
 
 ### EiC Transition Checklist
 
-- [ ] Set calendar reminder 3 weeks before term end
-- [ ] Contact peer review lead about successor
-- [ ] Document active reviews and their status  
-- [ ] Hand off any reviews you're personally handling
-- [ ] Write reflection summary
-- [ ] Schedule handoff meeting with incoming EiC
+* [ ] Set calendar reminder 3 weeks before term end
+* [ ] Contact peer review lead about successor
+* [ ] Document active reviews and their status  
+* [ ] Hand off any reviews you're personally handling
+* [ ] Write reflection summary
+* [ ] Schedule handoff meeting with incoming EiC
+the Peer Review Lead directly.

how-to/editors-guide.md

@@ -1,15 +1,6 @@
 # pyOpenSci Software Review Editor Guide
 
-<!--
-```{note}
-PyOpenSci has a partnership with JOSS where packages that are in-scope for JOSS
-can be directly accepted into the JOSS ecosystem through the pyOpenSci review.
-The JOSS component of the review happens after all of the review on the
-pyOpenSci side is complete and it begins through direct communication with a
-JOSS editor.
-``` -->
-
-Thank you for your time in serving as an editor for a PyOpenSci package! Below you will find some
+Thank you for your time in serving as an editor for a pyOpenSci package! Below, you will find some
 information about the role that editors have in the
 pyOpenSci Python open peer review process.
 
@@ -18,8 +9,8 @@ pyOpenSci Python open peer review process.
 Editors generally should:
 
 - Have completed a review for _at least_ 1 package for pyOpenSci.
-- Have some experience with open source software that supports the scientific
-  Python community. This experience could be maintaining or contributing to packages. It also could be experience related to usability of open source software and/or documentation, tutorials etc. Or finally it could be involvement in the scientific Python community in some other way.
+- Have some experience with open-source software that supports the scientific
+  Python community. This experience could be maintaining or contributing to packages. It could also be experience related to usability of open-source software and/or documentation, tutorials, etc. Alternatively, it could involve participation in the broader scientific Python community in another capacity.
 
 ## Two types of editors
 
@@ -29,16 +20,16 @@ There are two types of editors involved in our open peer review process:
 - Full editors
 
 Both types of editors are considered a part of the editorial board for
-pyOpenSci. The major difference between guest and full editors is:
+pyOpenSci. The significant difference between guest and full editors are:
 
 - A guest editor may only join the board for a single review.
 - A guest editor may be new to pyOpenSci's review process and thus require a bit more support in their first review.
 
 ### Guest editors
 
-A guest editor is is invited to lead a review in the
+A guest editor is invited to lead a review in the
 case where we need specific expertise for a single review. We also consider editors who are
-performing their first review as guest editors as they may require more
+performing their first review as guest editors, as they may require more
 guidance or mentorship to complete the review (if they are new to our organization).
 
 New editors who wish to continue on as full editors for pyOpenSci may do so
@@ -284,36 +275,45 @@ Be sure to:
 
 * explain why the decision was made
 * thank them for their work
-* make a note <TBD where this will be documented> to assign the reviewer to another submission with high chance of smooth
-review next time (e.g. a package author who has already submitted packages to us).
+* make a note <TBD where this will be documented> to assign the reviewer to another submission with a high chance of smooth
+review next time (for example, a package author who has already submitted packages to us).
 ```
 
+(reviewer-response-time)=
+## What to do if reviewers become quiet
+In some cases, the reviewers get busy and stop responding to the issue. If a reviewer hasn't responded to a direct ping `@reviewer-user-name` on the issue, try to email them (if an email is available). If email doesn't work and they haven't responded in over a month, do the following:
+
+1. If they have already submitted a review, you can move the review forward by making sure the review comments were addressed by the author yourself.
+2. If the reviewer has not yet submitted a review in the issue, leave a note on the review that you will look for a new reviewer. When you find a new reviewer, replace the old reviewer's name with the new reviewer's name in the YAML at the top of the issue.
+
+In some cases, you may be able to find an editor or reviewers in the pyOpenSci Slack community that can help move the review forward.
+
 ## Putting a review on hold & handling non-responsive authors
 
 In some cases, an author may need more time to respond to
 review comments. In this case, the author can choose to have
-their submission put on hold. As an editor you should apply the `holding label` to the GitHub issue.
+their submission put on hold. As an editor, you should apply the `holding label` to the GitHub issue.
 
 The holding status will be revisited every 3 months.
 
-After one year the issue will be closed if there is no movement towards responding to reviews by the author.
+After one year, the issue will be closed if there is no movement towards responding to reviews by the author.
 
-If the author simply not responding, the editor should:
+If the author is not responding, the editor should:
 
 - Tag the author (`@author-github-handle`) in an issue comment notifying them that we will close the issue in one month if there is no response.
-- Close the issue if one month has passed without a reply.
+- Close the issue if two months have passed without a reply.
 
-If needed you can also chose to email the author. using the email provided in the package metadata file of the package. The email
-could be in any of the three files in the package: `setup.py`, `pyproject.toml` (preferred) or `setup.cfg`.
+Before closing the issue email the author using the email provided in the package metadata file of the package. The email
+could be in any of the three files in the package: `setup.py`, `pyproject.toml` (preferred), or `setup.cfg`.
 
 ```{important}
-If a submission is closed and the author wishes to re-submit, they will have to start a new submission.
+If a submission is closed and the author wishes to resubmit, they will have to start a new submission.
 
 If the package is still in scope, the author will have to
 respond to the first round of reviews first. After that is
 complete, you can begin looking for new reviewers to
-evaluated the package. This ensures that none of the review
-energy spent in the first review, goes to waste.
+evaluate the package. This ensures that none of the review
+energy spent in the first review goes to waste.
 ```
 
 ### ✔️ 6. How to accept a package into the pyOpenSci ecosystem