MSP

Struc­ture:

• the journ­al pro­cesses more than one type of art­icle (e.g., re­search art­icles and re­views) and au­thors de­clare it at sub­mis­sion
• the journ­al has sep­ar­ate sec­tions (e.g., for spe­cial­ties or sub­fields)
• none of this (single pipeline, single type of art­icles)

Sub­mis­sion:

• au­thor chooses hand­ling ed­it­or
• au­thor sug­gests one or sev­er­al hand­ling ed­it­ors
• au­thor has no voice on the choice of an ed­it­or
• if au­thor picks a hand­ling ed­it­or, is the chief/man­aging ed­it­or(s) among the choices?

• au­thor sub­mits PDF art­icle only
• au­thor sub­mits PDF art­icle and a cov­er let­ter that will be vis­ible to ref­er­ees
• au­thor sub­mits PDF art­icle and a cov­er let­ter that will not be shared with ref­er­ees
• au­thor sub­mits PDF art­icle, a cov­er let­ter shared with ref­er­ees, and a let­ter vis­ible only to ed­it­ors

Triage:

• art­icle goes dir­ectly to chosen hand­ling ed­it­or
• art­icle is vet­ted by journ­al/pub­lish­er staff (but no ed­it­or) be­fore be­ing seen by either ed­it­ors or chief ed­it­ors
• art­icle is as­signed to hand­ling ed­it­or by chief ed­it­or:
  • un­as­signed art­icle are vis­ible only to chief ed­it­ors and staff
  • un­as­signed art­icles are vis­ible to any ed­it­or that re­ceives its URL (e.g., by email from chief, for con­sulta­tion)

• if needed, art­icle is re­as­signed to a dif­fer­ent hand­ling ed­it­or by the chief ed­it­or only
• if needed, hand­ling ed­it­ors can re­as­sign art­icles to each oth­er

Re­quests for opin­ions and re­ports:

• peer re­view is single-an­onym­ous (re­view­ers are hid­den from au­thors)
• peer re­view is double-an­onym­ous (fur­ther, au­thors are hid­den from re­view­ers)

• hand­ling ed­it­or dir­ectly re­quests ex­perts for quick opin­ions and full re­view/ref­er­ee re­ports
• hand­ling ed­it­or may also pre-se­lect a num­ber of ex­perts, as a pool from which to later re­quest quick opin­ions or full re­ports, as and when needed

• re­view­ers, along­side their re­ports, must also ex­pli­citly re­com­mend a de­cision (ac­cept, minor re­vi­sion, ma­jor re­vi­sion, re­ject)
• re­view­ers, along­side their re­ports, must also as­sign a score between 1 and 5

Rules:

• be­fore a full ref­er­ee re­port is re­ques­ted:
  • the in­ter­face en­cour­ages that an ex­tern­al quick opin­ion be ob­tained first
  • an ex­tern­al quick opin­ion must have been ob­tained first
  • chief ed­it­or re­viewed quick opin­ions and hand­ler's ad­vice, and ap­proved that full re­ports be re­ques­ted
  • some oth­er con­di­tion or user-in­ter­face en­cour­age­ment

• be­fore an art­icle is re­com­men­ded for ac­cept­ance or ac­cep­ted:
  • the in­ter­face en­cour­ages that at least one ex­tern­al re­port be ob­tained first
  • at least one ex­tern­al re­port must have been ob­tained first
  • the in­ter­face en­cour­ages that at least two ex­tern­al re­ports be ob­tained first
  • at least two ex­tern­al re­ports must have been ob­tained first
  • some oth­er con­di­tion or user-in­ter­face en­cour­age­ment

Re­vi­sions:

• au­thors can up­load a re­vi­sion of their art­icle at any time
• au­thors can up­load a re­vi­sion of their art­icle only after an ed­it­or re­ques­ted it
• hand­ling ed­it­or can ask for re­vi­sions
• chief ed­it­or asks for re­vi­sions after hand­ler re­com­mends re­vi­sion
• hand­ling ed­it­or re­com­mends re­vi­sion, chief ed­it­or ap­proves, then hand­ling ed­it­or re­quests re­vi­sion

De­cision:

• hand­ling ed­it­or can re­ject
• hand­ling ed­it­or can ac­cept
• hand­ling ed­it­or can re­com­mend ac­cept­ance/re­jec­tion

• chief ed­it­or re­jects after re­com­mend­a­tion from hand­ling ed­it­or
• chief ed­it­or ac­cepts after re­com­mend­a­tion from hand­ling ed­it­or
• chief ed­it­or ac­cepts after enough ed­it­ors vote in sup­port (how many? what rules?)
• chief ed­it­or ac­cepts after whole board votes on art­icle (any rules?)
• chief ed­it­or ac­cepts after board dis­cus­sion and wait­ing peri­od (how long?)

• chief ed­it­or sends ac­cept­ance email mes­sage to au­thors
• chief ed­it­or ap­proves ac­cept­ance, then hand­ling ed­it­or sends ac­tu­al ac­cept­ance mes­sage
• chief ed­it­or ap­proves ac­cept­ance or re­jec­tion, then hand­ling ed­it­or sends ac­tu­al de­cision mes­sage

Vis­ib­il­ity:

• all ed­it­ors can see all art­icles and their data (ex­cept those they au­thored, of course)
• all ed­it­ors can see all art­icles re­com­men­ded for de­cision (ex­cept those they au­thored)
• ed­it­ors can only see the art­icles they are hand­ling

• if an art­icle is vis­ible to an ed­it­or oth­er than its hand­ler or chief ed­it­or, then
  • ed­it­or can see the au­thors' sub­mis­sions only (manuscripts, ab­stracts, cov­er let­ters)
  • ed­it­or can see sub­mis­sions and ref­er­ee re­ports, but not the names of the ref­er­ees
  • ed­it­or can see all the data of an art­icle

• hand­ling ed­it­or in­ter­acts dir­ectly with the au­thor
• iden­tity of hand­ling ed­it­or is hid­den from the au­thor throughout the pro­cess

• hand­ling ed­it­or com­mu­nic­ates fi­nal de­cision to au­thors
• chief ed­it­or com­mu­nic­ates fi­nal de­cision to au­thors

Any oth­er pe­cu­li­ar­it­ies or re­quire­ments?

Send us an email and we’ll be happy to of­fer you a tour of Ed­it­Flow, or set up a demo in­stance to try it your­self.