USDA ARS PubAg Project

CONTEXT

The Client

ARS is the principal research arm of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The Challenge

Their PubAg Manuscript Submission Systems on their website could not input manuscript information into the system quickly and easily. This resulted in unnecessary delays and information gaps.

The Task

Revise the submission process to streamline the process and allow USDA staff to more effectivley manage the amount of submissions and for the submitters/authors to easily keep track of their submissions.

My Role on the Project (June-September 2022)

I tested the system on a staging site (an identical but temporary site for us to test the system before it was launched on the ARS website) to identify bugs or UX issues and collaborate with other team members and the client to develop solutions.

UX PROCESS

• I was given hundreds of DOI (digital object identifier) for peer-reviewed articles that authors/researchers could submit on the website.
• The system is linked to the Cross Ref API, which auto-populates manuscript information (e.g., publication date, abstract, author information) based on the DOI users enter.
• As the QA tester, I followed the testing requirements and user workflow charts that were developer earlier to ensure that the system met functional requirements.

• I worked closely with the development team by reporting bugs/anomalies through tickets in JIRA.


The challenges included:

• management of hundreds of submissions;
• alignment of records to the submission process; and,
• data cleanup

OUTCOME & INSIGHTS

The website was successfully launched in September 2022. The client was satisfied with the new submission process and website.

This QA process provided two key lessons:

• The system relies on an external tool (CrossRef API) that auto-populates manuscript information into the system. Although the API tool saves the author time by manually entering information such as publication date and abstract, the tool does not always “spit out” correct information, so users still have to double-check the data.

• The QA process needed to be more streamlined in the testing/implementation process. We were given the spreadsheet of sample DOIs by the client later in the QA process, which resulted in new test cases that we were not initially expecting. For example, we realized that some authors/researchers have multiple affiliations, which may not show up properly in the system we built.

KUDOS

Here is what my teammates said about working with me: