From Excel to EDS: how to organize convenient processing of materials for a scientific conference

In this article, I want to share the experience of organizing the collection, reviewing and discussing the materials sent by the participants of a scientific conference, held annually by our department.

We accept materials by e-mail in the formats OpenOffice and Microsoft Office, but the original layout of the collection, in accordance with the requirements of our printing house, is prepared in the format * .docx. The interaction between the authors, the organizing committee and reviewers had to be organized in such a way as to take into account all the incoming files, the changes and comments made to them. To control the removal of comments, it was necessary to save and compare different versions of files.

The first experience of the conference

Receiving materials involved several members of the department. The received file was checked for compliance with the formal requirements, then sent to a specialist for review, then (if the reviewer responded positively) to the editor to work on the compendium. Data on the materials received (title, authors, contact information) were entered by the editor into the general list. It was an ordinary Microsoft Excel file.

In this chain, there was a double work on reviewing and technical processing of materials. Structuring by thematic sections required care and accuracy. Changes were lost when exchanging file versions by email. These problems have led to an increase in the total time of work on the collection.
')

Automate using Google Drive

In 2014, taking into account previous experience, we created a form on Google Drive, which entered the data on the received materials at the time of their receipt, indicating the status (for review, edited, for compilation in the collection). The original file was also saved to Google Drive. The filling of the form was carried out by several employees. At the same time, the loss of files and their double processing were practically excluded.

There are new problems. When entering data it was required to check the availability of incoming materials in the list in order to avoid duplication. It was necessary to agree in advance on the rules for naming files, the distribution of the scope of work among the editors. Two editors could add a new file with the same name. One file could be downloaded for editing by several editors, while individual changes would disappear. Work on the collection has become more convenient, but I wanted more automation.

We are trying to organize work with Joomla

In 2016, it was decided to publish preliminary versions of materials for discussion and review on the conference website. For the organization of teamwork, we used CMS Joomla. Thematic sections, registration form with file sending were organized. An attempt was also made to move on to provide the conference participants with their own publication with the help of an online editor. This allowed working with different versions of materials using tools built into the CMS. But the majority of participants sent files by e-mail, ignoring the registration form, and had to return to the previous scheme of work, adding it with the publication of files by editors on the conference website. The use of the thematic forum has simplified the discussion of comments and the work of reviewers. Structuring the submissions by thematic sections has also become more convenient.

This approach to the organization of the conference had a number of problems. Work directly with the author's presentation of their materials online did not work out. We used our own website to store various versions of the files sent and organize collective access to them, but to control the changes, we had to download the files to the computer, and the modified ones to download again. Required additional efforts and time to maintain the site. As a result, one of the hacking attempts had to recover the sent materials. Due to these problems, we refused to use CMS Joomla.

Trying an electronic document management system

When discussing the organization of the conference in 2017, it was decided to test the electronic document management system as a tool for teamwork. Among the candidates were the most common, judging by the publications on the Internet, products: NauDoc, Alfresco, Pilot-ICE, 1C: Document flow.

Our selection criteria:

• the availability of a trial version without additional time costs;
• free use;
• support for various document formats;
• clear Russian documentation;
• the presence of the Russian-language interface.

I will not conduct a detailed comparative analysis of these systems. On the Internet there are a number of articles on these products. They immediately rejected the EDS, requiring prior purchase. Alfresco shoals due to the lack of Russian-language documentation and the lack of official support for the Russian-language interface. NauDoc is no longer supported by the manufacturer. We stopped at the Pilot-ICE in connection with the available trial version and the availability of a free license for educational organizations.

Adaptation of the system for our requests did not take much time. The server and client parts are installed on computers of our local network. We created a project with thematic sections to work on the structure of the collection. When a new material was received, it was entered into the project by one of the members of the organizing committee indicating the state. For these purposes, we used the work with materials cards and attributes.

The source files were stored on a virtual disk. After some time working on the file, the editor synchronized its version of the file with the server using the context menu of Windows Explorer. While working with a file, the editor blocked it from being modified. When replacing a file, for example, sent after the author's refinement, and synchronization with the server, a new version was also created. Subsequently, the decision was made to save certain changes in the current version. The use of a virtual disk turned out to be convenient due to the lack of binding of version control to the editing program and the file format. Of the minuses of the system it should be noted the inability to delete outdated versions.

For reviewing and controlling the removal of comments, the editor submitted documents in fixed-markup format by printing on a virtual printer, Pilot-XPS. At the same time, the document card was filled in, and its place in the project structure (Conference Book) was indicated. We noted the convenience of filling in the fields in the card compared to maintaining the register of incoming materials in the Excel file. The same copy and paste, but without having to switch between documents several times.

The reviewers concluded that the submitted material complied with the requirements of the conference and recommended it in one of the thematic sections of the collection. For comments, a tool was used to view XPS files and compare document versions in fixed-markup format.

The structuring of the conference materials by thematic sections was implemented using the operations of copying and pasting documents in the project structure. The process became much simpler, since it did not require the physical movement of the source files themselves and could be carried out jointly. The problem was the further integration of materials in the collection. For the layout of one section, it was necessary to manually select all the source files of documents related to this section. Further work on the compilation of the collection took place with the help of a text editor.

I will give the general scheme of our work using the SED:

• saving the incoming file to a virtual disk;
• Printing on a virtual printer in XPS format and registering the material sent in the structure of the collection outside thematic sections;
• wording of the assignment for review;
• elimination (if necessary) of comments and printing on a virtual printer of a new version of the document;
• control of the elimination of comments (version comparison);
• transfer of the document to the thematic section recommended by the reviewer;
• formulation of the task of the editor to merge files into one collection.

Despite the remaining problems, the use of the electronic document management system turned out to be more convenient compared to previous attempts to organize the processing of conference materials. Accounting, reviewing and structuring thematic sections have become effective through teamwork and reliable file storage. In conclusion, I will give a comparative table of our attempts to organize a conference using various tools.

The way of organizing teamwork	pros	Minuses
Maintaining a registry of incoming materials in the Microsoft Excel file	No need to install additional software	Double work on reviewing and technical processing of materials. Loss of changes in files.
Google Drive	The organization of collective access to the sent materials. Public access to the registry of received materials.	Difficulties in the distribution of work among editors. The risk of re-entering the material sent. Loss of changes in files. Inconvenient to compare file versions
CMS Joomla	The possibility of public access to the submitted materials. It is convenient to review materials and distribute them into thematic sections.	It is inconvenient to make changes to the files. The way of publishing materials did not find support among the participants of the conference. Additional costs for maintaining the site.
NauDoc	-	Lack of support
Alfresco	Free	Lack of Russian documentation
Pilot-ice	The organization of collective access to materials. Save different file versions Ability to compare files of different formats The possibility of convenient structuring of materials by thematic sections	There is no version control binding to the editing program. It is inconvenient to select files belonging to the same partition on a virtual disk. There is no way to delete individual versions of files.