For Editors

The proper editorial workflow is as follows:

1. Author submits article → Status changes to "Submitted"
2. Editor reviews the submission and assigns all intended peer reviewers → Status changes to "Under Review"
3. All assigned reviewers complete their reviews (the minimum required number must be met)
4. Editor reads all reviews together and makes one informed decision:
• If revisions are needed → set to "Revision Required" (author is notified)
• If the article is acceptable → Accept or Reject directly
5. Author receives the revision request, revises the manuscript, and resubmits
6. Status automatically returns to "Under Review"
7. Editor reviews the revised version and makes the final decision (Accept or Reject)
8. If accepted → upload galley proof → author approves → Publish

The key principle: assign ALL reviewers before making any decision. Do not set an article to "Revision Required" before the minimum number of reviews are complete.

Your journal has a configurable Minimum Reviewers setting found in Journal Settings → Review Settings. If it is set to 2, the system will block you from setting any article to "Revision Required" until at least 2 reviewers have marked their review as completed — regardless of how many are assigned.

This enforcement is intentional. If you wish to proceed with fewer completed reviews, you must deliberately reduce the Minimum Reviewers value in Journal Settings, which is a recorded, intentional editorial decision.

Yes — this is the most common editorial workflow mistake. If your journal requires 2 or more reviewers, making a revision decision based on only one review means:

• The second reviewer (if subsequently assigned) will review the original, unrevised manuscript — creating version confusion.
• The author receives premature feedback that may later conflict with the second reviewer's comments.
• The consolidated editorial judgment is weaker.

The correct approach: assign all reviewers first, wait for all required reviews to be completed, then make a single, consolidated decision.

The system enforces that the minimum number of required reviewers must have completed their reviews before a revision can be requested. You will see a modal explaining exactly how many completed reviews exist vs. how many are required.

You have two options:
1. Assign additional reviewers and wait for their reviews to be completed.
2. If you intentionally wish to proceed with fewer reviews, go to Journal Settings → Review Settings and reduce the Minimum Reviewers value. This is an intentional override and is your editorial responsibility.

Yes, but it should be done while the article is still in "Under Review" status. The Assign Reviewers button is available for articles in "Submitted" or "Under Review" status. The recommended practice is to assign all intended reviewers at the same time, so they all review the same version of the manuscript simultaneously.

The Post-Revision Decision form only appears after the author has submitted a revised manuscript. If an article is in "Revision Required" status but the author has not yet uploaded their revision, the Actions panel shows "Awaiting author's revised submission" instead of the decision form.

This is by design — it prevents accepting or rejecting an article before the editor has seen the revised version. Once the author submits their revision, the article status automatically returns to "Under Review" and the decision form becomes available.

Each status represents a specific stage in the editorial pipeline:

• Draft — Article saved by the author but not yet submitted for review.
• Submitted — Author has submitted the article; awaiting editor action.
• Under Review — Article has been assigned to peer reviewers.
• Revision Required — Editor has reviewed the peer reports and requested changes from the author.
• Accepted — Article has been accepted for publication pending galley proof.
• Published — Article is live on the journal website.
• Rejected — Article has been declined.

Status transitions are mostly triggered by editor actions, with two automatic transitions: (1) article goes to "Under Review" when reviewers are assigned, and (2) article returns to "Under Review" automatically when the author submits a revision.

Editors with Admin or Editor-in-Chief roles can manually change an article's status using the "Change Status" button on the article detail page. However, certain transitions are enforced by the system — notably, you cannot move an article to "Revision Required" unless the minimum required number of reviewers have completed their reviews.

Use manual status changes carefully and always provide a note explaining the reason, as all status changes are recorded in the article's status history.

The author's dashboard reflects the current status in real time. Key effects:

• "Under Review" — Author sees the status badge but has no upload or edit actions. They can view any completed reviewer comments that have been approved for release.
• "Revision Required" — Author sees an urgent action banner with an "Upload Revised Manuscript" button. They can read the editor notes and reviewer comments.
• "Accepted" — Author is notified by email and can see their galley proof for approval once uploaded.
• "Published" — Article appears live on the journal site.

Yes. Once a reviewer submits their review and it is approved by the editor, the author can see the reviewer's written comments and recommendation on their Reviews page in the author portal.

If double-blind peer review is enabled in Journal Settings, reviewer identities are hidden from authors (and author identities are hidden from reviewers). Confidential comments made by the reviewer to the editor are never shown to the author.

If a reviewer does not accept or decline their assignment by the deadline, you can:

1. Send a reminder — from the Review Management page, click the bell icon next to the pending assignment to send a reminder email.
2. Cancel the assignment — click the X icon to cancel the assignment and assign a replacement reviewer.

Overdue assignments are highlighted in the Review Management dashboard so you can act on them quickly.

In double-blind peer review, reviewer identities are hidden from authors and author identities are hidden from reviewers. This reduces potential bias in the review process.

To enable it, go to Journal Settings → Review Settings and check "Enable double-blind peer review." Note: if double-blind review is enabled, it is incompatible with the "Allow authors to suggest reviewers" option, as suggesting specific reviewers would reveal author identity.

Reviewers submit a formal recommendation alongside their comments:

• Accept — Reviewer believes the article is ready for publication as-is.
• Minor Revision — Acceptable with small corrections; no re-review needed.
• Major/Moderate Revision — Significant changes required; may need re-review.
• Reject — Reviewer does not recommend publication.

These are recommendations, not binding decisions. The final editorial decision always rests with you as the editor. When multiple reviewers disagree, you must use your judgment to weigh the assessments and make a fair, reasoned decision.

Before the Publish button becomes active, all of the following must be satisfied:

1. Article status must be "Accepted"
2. Processing fee must be verified (if your journal charges one)
3. A galley proof must be uploaded by the editor
4. The author must approve the galley proof
5. A Volume and Issue must be assigned
6. Page numbers must be entered

If any of these conditions are not met, the Publish button will be disabled with a message indicating what is still outstanding.

A galley proof is the formatted, publication-ready version of the article — exactly as it will appear in the journal (typically a professionally typeset PDF). After an article is accepted:

1. The editor uploads the galley proof via the article detail page.
2. The author is notified and must log in to review and approve it.
3. Once the author approves, the Publish button becomes available to the editor.

This step ensures the author has verified that the final version is accurate before it goes live.

On the article detail page, the publication section (visible when the article is "Accepted") allows you to select a Volume and Issue from dropdown menus. You must also enter the page range (e.g., 1–15).

If no volumes or issues exist yet, go to the Volumes section of the editor panel and create them first. Issues belong to volumes — create the volume first, then add issues to it.