One editor at the simplest, three tiers with parallel group review at the furthest
One editor. Invite reviewers, read them, decide.
An office that checks, an editor who invites and recommends, an editor in chief who decides. Double blind, two reviews, one revision round.
Three editor tiers, a pre-evaluator screening before the office sees anything, group review running in parallel with external review, and a statistician whose report reaches the other reviewers.
Ready to run, and yours to adjust
Editor levels
One, two or three tiers, chosen at setup and changeable after
Confidentiality
Double blind, author blind or open, set for the journal
Reviews required
Two by default, changeable for the journal and again for a single manuscript
Invitations
Manual, or automatic and periodic, inviting the next candidate while others are still pending
Silent reviewers
Cancelled and replaced automatically, at an interval you set
Optional roles
Pre-evaluator, group reviewer, statistician, approver, viewer, co-reviewer
Down to the detail
We know the smaller details are often what makes a good product great, so they are written down rather than left for a call.
| Structure | |
|---|---|
| Editor levels | One, two or three tiers, chosen at setup and changeable afterwards |
| Optional roles | Pre-evaluator, group reviewer, statistician, co-reviewer, approver, viewer |
| Role names | Renamed to match the titles your organisation actually uses |
| Decision rights | Recommendation or decision, set per person, with administrator proxy available |
| The review itself | |
| Review models | Double blind, author blind, open |
| Reviews required | Two by default, changeable for the journal and again for a single manuscript |
| Review window | Set for the journal, with reminders on your own schedule |
| Statistician | A special reviewer whose report reaches the other reviewers if it arrives first |
| Group review | Runs in parallel, before, during or after external review, compiled into one report |
| Co-reviewing | An early career researcher shares a review and receives a certificate |
| Timing and chasing | |
| Overdue threshold | A total review time in days, after which a manuscript flags red regardless of stage |
| Automatic invitations | Sent periodically to new candidates, even while earlier invitations are pending |
| Automatic cancellation | A reviewer who does not respond is cancelled and the next one invited |
| Staff process times | Targets per stage, so a delay is attributed rather than guessed at |
2 things extend this one
Tell us what you review.
We will show you the workflow.
Send us the outline of your process and we will build it in a session with you.