Editors and journals are constantly tasked with the same pivotal question: Are we doing all we can to streamline the peer review process while maintaining high-quality standards? When your editorial team begins to rely on the phrase, “it’s the way we’ve always done it,” it may be an indication that your workflows are overdue for a refresh.
This blog post will help you answer the critical question: Is our current editorial management system (EMS)—or lack thereof—truly serving us? Below, we explore the role of EMS solutions, outline the warning signs that signal it’s time for a new platform, and provide clear steps for making a smooth transition.
1. The Role of Modern Editorial Management Software
Editorial management systems (EMS), sometimes called “manuscript tracking” or “peer review” systems, have been around for over two decades. However, their capabilities have evolved significantly in that time. Originally, these platforms existed to automate tasks like:
- Collecting submissions and storing them in a database
- Assigning reviewers to each paper
- Tracking where each article was in the review cycle
- Facilitating decision notifications and editorial correspondence
Today’s EMS tools go far beyond those basics, often covering a broader scope of publishing needs, from advanced metadata capture (like ORCID iDs, ROR IDs, and funding info) to built-in plagiarism detection and integrated production pipelines. More modern systems also streamline communication among authors, reviewers, and editorial staff by centralizing messages and automating routine reminders.
Why Does This Matter?
- Operational Efficiency: By eliminating administrative clutter, your editorial team can dedicate more time to high-level tasks like evaluating reviews, checking data integrity, and mentoring early-career researchers.
- Compliance and Integrity: As publishing standards grow more rigorous (especially around open data, ethical guidelines, and metadata quality), an EMS can help keep your journal aligned with international expectations.
- Scalability: A robust system should support journals of all sizes—startups with a trickle of submissions, or mature publications managing hundreds of manuscripts monthly.
2. When Is Editorial Management Software Necessary?
2.1 Early-Stage Journals
Many new journals begin their journey manually handling a handful of submissions—email, spreadsheets, or even pen-and-paper tracking can feel manageable if you only see a few manuscripts per month. In the early phase, an EMS might seem like an unnecessary expense.
2.2 The 25-Submissions Benchmark
A common inflection point comes once you’re receiving around 25+ manuscripts per year (or more), as small inefficiencies add up quickly:
- Sending emails to prospective reviewers multiple times for multiple manuscripts
- Manually entering metadata for each paper
- Chasing busy editors who might be unclear about who’s handling which tasks
At that point, editors often spend more time coordinating than they do actively editing. That’s a strong indicator that an EMS (or a more powerful one than you currently have) can help lighten the load.
2.3 Growing Pains
Even if your journal has been around for years, you may find that increasing submission volumes or new editorial standards (e.g., handling data or code review) push your current workflows to the limit. If you see repeated bottlenecks, consistent backlogs, or more frequent publication delays, an EMS could be a strategic investment.
3. Telltale Signs You Need a New Editorial Management System
Consider the following “pressure points.” If one or more of these sounds all too familiar, it may be time to rethink your approach.
3.1 The Admin Work Pile-Up
Symptom: Editors constantly complain they’re too busy sending emails or updating spreadsheets to focus on editorial tasks.
Cause: Without robust automation features (e.g., automatic reviewer invitation reminders or auto-assignment of submissions to specific editors), the same manual steps are repeated.
Solution: A modern EMS that automates email templates, sets up customized submission forms, and flags tasks at each review stage—so staff can focus on decision-making and quality control.
3.2 Scattered Communications
Symptom: Email threads are hard to track, and important updates get buried in editors’ inboxes. Authors or reviewers frequently have to resend requests.
Cause: The EMS lacks centralized messaging or its email integration is clunky, forcing editors to switch between multiple tools (like external email clients, Slack channels, or spreadsheets).
Solution: Opt for a platform featuring in-platform communication and email integration. This ensures all editorial exchanges remain connected to the relevant manuscript record.
3.3 Struggling to Keep Pace with Evolving Industry Standards
Symptom: Your journal is receiving repeated requests for open data compliance, automated metadata exports, or synergy with ORCID—but your EMS doesn’t have these features.
Cause: Legacy or outdated software that doesn’t regularly update or integrate with new publishing requirements (e.g., Plan S compliance, Crossref’s Similarity Check, or persistent identifiers for data sets).
Solution: Seek a solution that proactively updates its feature set, ideally on a Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) model that automatically provides new tools and integrations without manual upgrades.
3.4 Cumbersome Peer Review to Production Handoffs
Symptom: Even if you manage to complete reviews quickly, finalizing articles for publication takes weeks or months due to data entry, missing files, or repeated email follow-ups.
Cause: Manual file transfers and inconsistent metadata capture cause repeated errors downstream.
Solution: A system offering seamless production handoff, meaning it can export complete article files and metadata to your production or hosting service, drastically reducing re-checking and re-keying of information.
3.5 Frequent or Complex Upgrades
Symptom: You’re responsible for frequent “version downloads” or server tweaks, and you’re missing features because updates are too cumbersome to apply.
Cause: Self-hosted or custom-coded solutions that demand an in-house IT team or specialized training.
Solution: A cloud-based or fully hosted EMS that takes care of maintenance, security patches, and feature upgrades, letting you focus on editorial excellence rather than system administration.
4. Steps to Take If You’re Ready to Switch
Once you’ve identified that your current workflows or platform just aren’t cutting it, here are the key steps to guide your team through a smooth upgrade.
4.1 Document Your Existing Workflow
Create a flowchart or checklist detailing your current submission-to-publication process. Pinpoint specific pain points (e.g., is it the author submission form, the reviewer assignment process, or the transition to production?). Having this overview helps you make a targeted “wish list” for a new EMS.
4.2 Identify Must-Have vs. Nice-to-Have Features
Armed with a clearer workflow map, list your non-negotiable needs:
- Automated reviewer invitations and reminders
- Single sign-on for authors and reviewers (ORCID-enabled login)
- Integrated plagiarism checks or peer review analytics
- GDPR-compliant data handling
- Direct upload of final article files to your hosting or aggregator
Then, list the features that would be nice but aren’t deal-breakers (e.g., collaboration with data repositories or advanced version comparison tools). This helps you objectively evaluate potential EMS platforms.
4.3 Survey the EMS Landscape
It’s time to shop around:
- Research: Look at platforms’ websites and user testimonials. Ask trusted colleagues for feedback.
- Demos and Trials: Most vendors offer demos or trial periods. Test key functions with real manuscripts and see how the system handles your typical workflow scenarios.
- Assess Vendor Support: Does the provider offer thorough onboarding, robust documentation, and ongoing updates?
Pro tip: research.conductscience.com specializes in flexible editorial solutions for peer review and beyond, covering everything from metadata management to integrated publication. If you’re curious about how our platform can smooth your transition and reduce editorial overhead, we’re always happy to schedule a personalized consultation.
4.4 Create a Migration Plan
Once you’ve chosen a platform:
- Set Timelines: Decide when you’ll migrate existing manuscripts and when you’ll start accepting new ones in the system.
- Communicate with Stakeholders: Let editors, authors, and reviewers know about upcoming changes and any required actions (e.g., signing up for accounts).
- Pilot Phase: Consider running a pilot with a small set of manuscripts to confirm everything is configured properly before fully transitioning.
4.5 Monitor and Optimize
After rolling out a new system, gather feedback from editors, reviewers, and authors. Track key metrics (e.g., average submission-to-decision time) to see if improvements line up with your expectations. Make any necessary workflow tweaks, and keep an eye on software updates—an active feedback loop ensures your EMS remains a productive tool rather than a static piece of technology.
5. Bringing It All Together
An editorial management system can be a journal’s greatest asset—or its most persistent stumbling block. Knowing when to upgrade is crucial for maintaining efficiency and quality in a rapidly changing publishing landscape.
By documenting existing workflows, identifying your must-have features, exploring the range of solutions, and executing a well-planned migration, you can future-proof your editorial operations. The right EMS will help you:
- Automate everyday tasks so editors can focus on editorial oversight and decision-making
- Integrate seamlessly with evolving industry standards, from data security to metadata requirements
- Maintain a consistent brand and user experience for authors and reviewers
- Adapt quickly to changes in editorial policies and publishing mandates
If you suspect it’s time to level up your journal’s technology, don’t wait. Reach out to solutions providers, ask tough questions, and test how each platform aligns with your workflow. And if you want to see how research.conductscience.com can help drive your editorial processes forward—from streamlined peer review to integrated analytics—we’re here to help you chart a path toward a more efficient and impactful editorial operation.
Ready to transform your peer review process?
Connect with our team at research.conductscience.com for a free consultation or to schedule a software demo. Let’s work together to make your editorial workflow simpler, stronger, and more intuitive.
