Create a process where the admins can issue a scorecard and approve a review for publication for reviews that have been pending editorial approval for a while.
Confidence Ukaegbu
Currently, if a review has been pending editorial approval for an extended period of time, the admins are to debug the issue and then escalate the issue to management. I believe creating a process where the admins can issue an editor scorecard through the author dashboard and approve a review for publication if the review receives a good score would reduce the number of times this issue comes up and also reduce the number of related emails.
J Kato
That would be awesome, but may I suggest an addendum? Sometimes when people review my book, they flag up errors. In cases where they're mistaken, I point out that most of the errors mentioned are not actual errors, and it gets zipped back to the reviewer.
And there it sits. OBC used to be a lot more transparent about review status (This review has been submitted; This review has been put on hold because of a dispute in errors - like in my example above; I don't recall the actual wording but something like that).
So I would suggest that in addition to pending editorial approval, if a review has error disputes and the reviewer hasn't replied to the author within a set timeframe (say 6 months) then those reviews should also be approved via admin. (Seriously, when I was able to check the status on my bulk review package, there were reviews pending resolution of error disputes that go all the way back to 2018, and in the past seven years, the book has been revised so much that those old reviews are probably inaccurate.)