Feature Request/Idea: Review process support

Overview of the Feature Request
Dear Dataverse developers, I wouold like to propose a feature enhancement for the status tracking of reviewed datasets. Currently, there are two statuses: "Unpublished" and "In Review." However, "In Review" is semantically more aligned with "Submitted for Review." The "Unpublished" status encompasses all drafts, tests, and potentially abandoned datasets, which can be confusing and cluttered.

This feature request aims to:

• Clearly distinguish between datasets that are actively "In Review" and those that are merely "Unpublished."
• Provide administrators with tools to effectively manage and track the review process.

What kind of user is the feature intended for?
(Example users roles: API User, Curator, Depositor, Guest, Superuser, Sysadmin)
Curator, Superuser, Sysadmin

What inspired the request?
As an administrator, I need a streamlined process to identify datasets that require my review and those that are with authors for improvements. Currently, the "Unpublished" status is too broad and includes all drafts, which can be overwhelming and inefficient. Having clearer statuses and notifications will significantly improve the management of the review process.

What existing behavior do you want changed?

• Redefine the "In Review" status to explicitly mean "Submitted for Review".
• Introduce a way to differentiate datasets that are actively being reviewed - for example status: "In Revision" - from those that are merely in draft form or potentially abandoned.

Any brand new behavior do you want to add to Dataverse?

• A feature that allows administrators to list datasets currently under review, specifying whether they need to be reviewed or are awaiting improvements from the author.

• A functionality where administrators can read the messages sent to authors when a dataset is returned for revisions.

• (Optionally, but welcomed) An automatic email notification system that alerts administrators when a dataset is sent back to the author, including the message content provided to the author.

Any open or closed issues related to this feature request?
There are couple of issues regarding the review process, but not that exactly, as far as I could see.

Thank you very much for consideration!
Sergej

The issue names no files, tests, or entry points. Start by tracing the existing dataset status and review workflow described in the request. Done would require an agreed design and implementation for distinct review states, administrator views or messages, and any notification behavior.