Whoever is accountable in your process, an editor-in-chief, a panel chair or a committee, turns a set of scores into an allocation that has to survive being questioned.
Aggregated scores, reviews and declared conflicts
A judgement across the whole field, rather than one submission at a time.
An allocation, and a record that stands up when it is challenged
Four moments where the system does the carrying
Each one is work that used to belong to a person, and no longer has to.
Before they sit down
Scores, reviews and declared conflicts are aggregated in advance, in one view that sorts and filters, with the journal's own graphs and reports beside it.
You buy back an hour of the most expensive time in the process.
Seeing the whole field
The distribution is visible, and so is disagreement between reviewers.
A divided panel looks divided rather than lukewarm, which is what stops the wrong call being made quietly.
Making the call
The decision and the reason are recorded as they are taken, and route to an approver first if your governance uses one.
Your appeal process stops depending on who remembers what.
A year later
The record already holds who saw what, who scored what, what changed and why. Reports come off the same data rather than being rebuilt.
Answering a challenge takes an afternoon rather than a fortnight.
The screen this all happens on
Ready to run, and yours to adjust
PeerPath ships with every element already in place and working. Setting it up is a set of adjustments rather than a build, and the same adjustments stay open to you long after you have gone live.
Who decides
Decision permission, granted person by person
An approval step
Whether decisions divert for a check before the applicant is told
Board level assessment
Group review, compiled into one report for the committee
Read only oversight
A viewer role for people who need sight but not control
Decision without review
Whether a chair can decide before a submission goes out at all
Where it goes
Export into whichever tool your board already reads
Committees are made of people giving up an evening. A pack that is ready when they arrive is a form of respect, and it shows in whether they come back.
Who is accountable, and who is only advising
One setting decides which editors recommend and which decide. Around it sit the oversight roles you can switch on when governance asks for them.
Recommendation
Handles the manuscript, gathers the reviews, proposes an outcome. Cannot close it.
Decision
Makes the final call and releases it to the author.
| Where it is set | Configure, Staff, Edit profile, Permissions. Person by person. |
| How many deciders | Ideally one editor with decision permission per manuscript |
| Who can hold it | Usually the Editor-in-Chief, though the second level can decide instead |
| Proxy | An administrator can perform the decision action on an editor's request |
| Who sends the email | The deciding editor, or the editorial office on their behalf |
| Approver | If switched on, decisions divert for a check before the author is told |
Four more experiences you are responsible for
Tell us what you review.
We will show you the workflow.
Tell us how your chair or committee decides. We will configure it and walk you through the record it leaves behind.