Your editors decide who reads a submission and when there is enough to call it. That judgement is the product.
A checked submission and a queue that is already current
Judgement about scope, about who should read it, and about when there is enough.
A recommendation or a decision, with the reasoning attached
Four moments where the system does the carrying
Each one is work that used to belong to a person, and no longer has to.
It reaches them
The files, the metadata, the abstract and the whole correspondence history are on one page, with a PDF preview. They agree to handle it or decline in a click.
Editors spend their first minutes reading rather than assembling.
Finding reviewers
Search your database by keyword and history, add somebody new without leaving the manuscript, and order the candidates by priority.
Your reviewer pool widens instead of narrowing, which is the only real fix for reviewer fatigue.
While the reviews come in
Invitations go out in the order set. Reminders send themselves. A reviewer who does not respond is replaced automatically, at the interval you chose.
Time to decision falls without anyone being asked to work faster.
Making the call
Reviews, ratings and the confidential comments meant only for editors sit on one tab. Record a recommendation or a decision and it routes to whoever is next.
The gap between ready and decided stops being the longest part of your process.
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.
Editorial structure
One, two or three levels of editor, whichever matches your office
Who decides
Recommendation or decision permission, granted person by person
How many reviews
The number required before a manuscript is ready to call
Invitation behaviour
Manual, or automatic and periodic with replacement built in
Reviewer database
Your own list, searchable by keyword, history and availability
Notes and flags
Private context that travels with the manuscript, not with a person
Most editors are volunteers with a day job. Every minute the system gives back is a minute spent on the thing you actually asked them for.
Your office, not our template
Most systems assume one editorial structure and make you bend to it. Three shapes cover almost every journal, and underneath sits the single permission that decides who is accountable.
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.
Send us your editorial structure and your review policy. We will build it and show your editors what their week would look like.