See below for an initial suggestion for how to split up the page for bibliographic information in the submission into more pages (Bibliographic, Status, Abstract, etc.). This example is for eprints of type Journal. Other types have somewhat different sets of fields, but I think splitting in this way should work for most types.

Please enter your comments and suggestions where appropriate by editing this page (use the Edit Page link above).

BIBLIOGRAPHIC:

Title *

Translation of Title

Authors *

Year *

Month

Publication *

Volume

Number

Pages

Editors

Publisher

Place of Publication (JM: should be added for books and proceedings)

Published Online

STATUS:

Published? *

Peer Review Status *

Additional Publishing Information

ABSTRACT

Abstract *

Document Language * (FG: this might also go under the header “other information” as it doesn’t really refer to the abstract, JM: or in the section affiliation as it is one category one can browse for.)

Additional Abstract

Keywords

AFFILIATION:

Subject Areas *

Country / Organization / Project *

Funding Part

OTHER:

Commentary on Outside Item

References

Online Context

Comments and Suggestions to the Archive Administrator

Comment by Florian Gerlach (FG):

I think splitting the “bibliographic information” page is a good idea, but splitting it into five pages is too large an increase in the number of pages in the submission process. Particularly for new users, this would give the impression of a never-ending-story.

My suggestion is to split it into a maximum of three pages, e.g.

1 “Bibliographic Information”

2 “Abstract and Context” (containing the points listed under the sub-heading “Abstract” above plus the “Commentary on Outside Item”, “References” and “Online Context”)

3 “Affiliation, Status and other information” (containing the points listed under the sub-headings “Affiliation”, “Status” and the remaining points of the sub-heading “Other”)

Comment by Julia Meier (JM): I think Florian is right. Too many pages might have a negative effect. I support his suggestion concerning the division in the three subsections. One could add subheadings so that the suggested sections are still visible.

Comment by Helga Willer (HW): I would not split up the current pages - as an editor, who is sometimes changing existing entries including the documents attached, I find already now that there are too many clicks until I get where I want to get - when editing or changing entries I would not mind if the whole information was just on one page. Perhaps views could be different for users and for editors ? From a user’s point of view I think Florians suggestion is good.