Editorial Workflow & Manuscript Submission
This cluster covers the operational side of getting a manuscript through the editorial process: submission, initial screening, reviewer assignment, revision cycles, and final decision. It focuses on the tools and processes editorial offices actually use, rather than the review models or ethical questions covered elsewhere in this section. Manuscript submission and peer-review management is typically handled through dedicated platforms. Editorial Manager and ScholarOne are widely used commercial systems for managing submissions across large and mid-size publishers, while the Open Journal Systems (OJS) is an open-source platform commonly used by smaller and society-run journals. These platforms structure how manuscripts are tracked, how reviewers are invited and reminded, and how editorial decisions are recorded and communicated to authors. Guidance on running an editorial office well — handling conflicts of interest, managing reviewer pools, and setting decision timelines — is published by organizations including the STM Association and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), which also addresses how editorial offices should handle misconduct concerns that arise during review. For a research administrator, this cluster is useful for understanding what happens to a manuscript after submission: typical timelines, what triggers desk rejection versus external review, how revision requests are structured, and what recordkeeping editorial offices maintain. It connects closely to peer-review content on review models and terminology, and to ai-editorial-standards content on how these platforms and offices are adapting policy to generative AI use in submissions and review.
Guides
United2Act: The Coalition Coordinating Publishers’ Response to Paper Mills
United2Act is the COPE/STM-backed coalition of publishers, research institutions, funders, and infrastructure organizations coordinating a shared, cross-sector response to paper mills.
STM Integrity Hub: How Publishers Screen Manuscripts for Paper Mills Together
The STM Integrity Hub is a shared, cloud-based screening infrastructure that lets scholarly publishers pool integrity signals to catch papermill and duplicate-submission manuscripts before peer review.
Editorial Board Responsibilities: What the Role Actually Involves
A comprehensive guide to what editorial board membership involves: role scope, COPE-aligned ethical obligations, peer-review oversight, conflict-of-interest management, editorial policy input, term/appointment norms, and the relationship to the editor-in-chief and publisher.
Graphical Abstract: Examples and Guidelines
A step-by-step guide to designing an effective graphical abstract: a ten-rule design framework, a publisher-by-publisher specification comparison (Elsevier, Cell Press, RSC, ACS, Wiley, Springer Nature, PLOS), a creation workflow, and a common-mistakes checklist.
How Long Does a Retraction Take? Timeline From Notification to Correction
How long a retraction actually takes, stage by stage: what the published timing data show, why institutional investigations dominate the total, and what typically causes delay.
PLOS ONE Journal Submission Guide: Scope, Formatting, Fees, and Review Process
A practical, independent guide to submitting to PLOS ONE: its soundness-not-novelty review criteria, manuscript formatting requirements, the Academic Editor review process, and current publication fees.
How to Write a Reason for Suggesting a Peer Reviewer
How to write a strong, specific justification when nominating a peer reviewer during manuscript submission, including the conflict-of-interest norms authors are expected to follow and worked example sentences.
Journal Cover Letter: A Worked, Annotated Example
A complete, paragraph-by-paragraph annotated example of a journal submission cover letter — significance statement, originality confirmation, conflict-of-interest disclosure, and suggested reviewers — plus a clean copy-ready template.
How to Write an Appeal Letter to a Journal Editor
When a manuscript rejection may rest on a factual reviewer error, a misunderstanding of the methodology, or a procedural issue, an appeal can be worth writing. This guide covers when an appeal is appropriate, how to structure a point-by-point rebuttal, tone, and realistic chances of success.
Journal Finder Tools: What They Do and Their Limits
What journal finder and manuscript-matching tools actually do, a landscape of the major named tools (Elsevier Journal Finder, Springer Nature Journal Suggester, JANE, Web of Science Manuscript Matcher), and their real limitations.
Anti-Plagiarism Software: How Turnitin, iThenticate, and Crossref Similarity Check Work
Anti-plagiarism software describes text-matching tools like Turnitin, iThenticate, and Crossref Similarity Check. Here is what they actually detect, how the three products differ, and why a similarity score is not a plagiarism verdict.
Call for Papers (CFP): What It Is and How to Vet It
What a call for papers is, how journal and conference CFPs differ, where legitimate ones come from, and how to check a solicitation for predatory-journal or predatory-conference red flags before submitting.
