proc.review.edit assumes everything from proc.review.log is clear to the proc.review.role.editor

[thejayps]

As a proc.review.role.editor I have found logging information to be unclear subsequent to proc.review.log, and during proc.review.edit. It is possible that aspects of logging comments met with rule.generic.clarity for me within the context of a proc.review.log (where it is easy for checkers to provide context) but have since become unclear after time has passed since proc.review.log and the context has vanished. It is probably difficult for proc.review.editor s to anticipate that proc.review.log information could be unclear at a later stage unless they are prompted to have this in their minds during a proc.review.log.

Possible solutions:

• update proc.review to encourage proc.review.role.editor s to be aware of where context from discussion has provided clarity and to enforce clarity of logging strictly.
• provide a recognised method eg. proc.review.edit.act.query to request more information from checkers subsequent to logging.

[rptb1]

A couple of thoughts:

1. proc.review.log does not explicitly state the purpose of logging, at least part of which is to make the issues clear to proc.role.editor.
2. We could say that the editor should check the log during logging for clarity.
3. We could recommend that proc.role.scribe is the same person as proc.role.editor.
4. proc.review.edit could say how to clarify issues.