Editorial workflow is the sequence of activities, responsibilities, and decisions used to move a scholarly submission from initial receipt through editorial assessment, peer review, revision, and final decision. It defines what happens to a manuscript, who is responsible for each stage, and what needs to be completed before the submission can progress.
For journals using a digital publishing environment such as Alkademy Press, an editorial workflow can be represented within the software rather than being managed through disconnected spreadsheets, email conversations, and manually updated records. This gives editors and editorial staff a clearer view of where submissions are in the process and what action is required next.
An editorial workflow can vary considerably between journals. A small independent publication may have one editor handling most stages, while a society journal or university press may involve managing editors, section editors, reviewers, editorial assistants, and multiple approval points.
What Does Editorial Workflow Do?
Editorial workflow provides a defined path for handling manuscripts after they enter a journal.
At its simplest, the process might look like:
Submission → Initial Assessment → Editor Assignment → Peer Review → Revision → Editorial Decision → Publication
The actual sequence can be more detailed. A manuscript might be returned to an author for missing information, sent through several rounds of review, reassigned to another editor, or reviewed again following revision.
The purpose of an editorial workflow is not simply to create a list of stages. It establishes responsibility and progression. Each stage should make it clear what needs to happen, who should perform the action, and what event allows the manuscript to move forward.
A digital editorial system can record these transitions as part of the manuscript’s history, giving the journal a traceable record of how the submission has been handled.
Key Features of an Editorial Workflow
Editorial workflows differ according to journal policies, but several capabilities are particularly important when managing scholarly submissions.
Submission Intake
The workflow begins when a manuscript enters the journal.
The editorial system needs to capture the submission and make it available to the appropriate members of the editorial team. Information collected during submission can provide the starting point for subsequent assessment without requiring staff to recreate the record.
Editorial Assignment
A submission may need to be assigned to an editor based on subject area, article type, workload, or the journal’s internal responsibilities.
Assignment capabilities allow editorial offices to direct manuscripts to editors and establish ownership of the next stage.
For journals with section editors or specialized editorial teams, this can be particularly useful because submissions can be routed according to the publication’s organizational structure.
Initial Assessment
Before peer review begins, editors may assess whether the submission meets the journal’s basic requirements and falls within its scope.
This stage can include checking the subject matter, completeness, suitability, and other journal-specific criteria.
The outcome may be progression to review, a request for additional information, or a decision not to proceed.
Reviewer Coordination
When a manuscript enters peer review, the workflow expands to include reviewer selection, invitations, responses, review assignments, deadlines, and submitted reports.
The editorial system should make these activities visible to the appropriate editor while keeping reviewer information and manuscript materials organized.
Review Management
A manuscript may require multiple reviews and, in some cases, several rounds of peer review.
The workflow needs to account for outstanding reviews, completed reports, reviewer deadlines, and additional review requests.
This prevents the editorial process from depending entirely on individual memory or separate tracking documents.
Revision Handling
Authors may be asked to revise their manuscript following editorial or peer-review feedback.
A revision stage allows the journal to distinguish the new version from earlier submissions while retaining the history of the manuscript.
Depending on the journal’s policy, revised manuscripts may return to the original reviewers or undergo another form of editorial assessment.
Decision Management
Once sufficient editorial information has been gathered, an editor can make a decision about the manuscript.
Possible outcomes include acceptance, rejection, or a request for further revision.
A workflow should connect the decision to the manuscript record so that the journal retains a clear history of what was decided and when.
Deadline Tracking
Editorial workflows often involve several time-sensitive activities.
Reviewer deadlines, revision periods, editorial tasks, and publication schedules can all affect how quickly a manuscript progresses.
Deadline tracking helps editorial teams identify submissions that require attention instead of discovering delays after a deadline has already passed.
Audit History
A complete editorial workflow should leave a record of important actions.
This can include assignments, status changes, reviewer activity, decisions, communications, and other workflow events.
Such records provide useful operational visibility and can help journals understand how a manuscript was handled from submission to outcome.
Who Uses an Editorial Workflow?
Editorial workflow involves different participants depending on the structure of the journal.
Editors-in-chief may oversee the overall process and make or approve important editorial decisions.
Managing editors often coordinate day-to-day operations, monitor submissions, and ensure that manuscripts continue moving through the appropriate stages.
Section editors or associate editors may take responsibility for submissions within particular subject areas.
Editorial assistants can support administrative activities such as checking submissions, coordinating communications, and monitoring outstanding tasks.
Reviewers participate during the peer-review stage by evaluating assigned manuscripts and submitting their reports.
Authors interact with the workflow when submitting manuscripts, responding to revision requests, and receiving editorial decisions.
Each participant may therefore see a different part of the workflow depending on their role and responsibilities.
Editorial Workflow vs. Manuscript Workflow
The terms editorial workflow and manuscript workflow are closely related but emphasize different aspects of journal operations.
A manuscript workflow describes the movement of the manuscript itself through different states.
An editorial workflow focuses more heavily on the people, actions, responsibilities, and decisions involved in moving that manuscript forward.
For example, “under review” describes a manuscript’s status, while selecting reviewers, monitoring their deadlines, assessing their reports, and determining the next action are components of the editorial workflow.
The two work together in journal management software.
Editorial Workflow vs. Peer Review Workflow
Peer review is one component of a broader editorial workflow.
A peer-review workflow generally focuses on activities such as reviewer selection, invitations, review assignments, report submission, and reviewer deadlines.
Editorial workflow encompasses these activities but extends beyond them to include submission intake, editor assignment, preliminary assessment, revisions, decisions, and other editorial responsibilities.
Understanding this distinction is useful when evaluating journal software because a system that handles peer review effectively may still need additional capabilities for managing the complete editorial operation.
Why Is Editorial Workflow Important?
A defined editorial workflow helps a journal operate consistently as submission volumes increase.
Without an established process, manuscripts can become difficult to track, responsibilities may become unclear, and important actions can be delayed.
A well-designed workflow can help journals:
- Clarify responsibility for each stage
- Reduce administrative uncertainty
- Keep submissions moving
- Monitor pending editorial tasks
- Maintain records of important actions
- Coordinate editors and reviewers
- Handle revisions systematically
- Improve communication with authors
- Support consistent editorial practices
- Identify process bottlenecks
The goal is not to make every journal follow the same process. Instead, the workflow should reflect the journal’s policies while giving its editorial team enough structure to work reliably.
Common Editorial Workflow Challenges
Editorial workflows can become difficult to manage when they rely heavily on manual coordination.
Email-based communication can make it harder to determine whether a reviewer has responded, whether an editor has completed an assessment, or whether an author has submitted a revision.
Another challenge is workflow variation. Different article types may require different review procedures, while special issues may involve guest editors or unusual approval stages.
High submission volumes can create another problem. Even a well-defined process can become difficult to maintain when editors must monitor hundreds of manuscripts across different stages.
A capable journal management system can help address these challenges by providing role-based access, task visibility, workflow records, and automated tracking.
AI and Editorial Workflow
AI can complement an editorial workflow by assisting with tasks that would otherwise require substantial manual effort.
Depending on the system, AI may help identify potential issues in submissions, support duplicate detection, assist with reviewer matching, or help editors prepare routine communications.
The important consideration is where AI fits within the workflow. It should support activities that benefit from automation while leaving substantive editorial judgment with qualified people.
For journals, this distinction matters because an efficient workflow should not become an automated decision-making system. Editors remain responsible for interpreting research, considering reviewer feedback, and making publication decisions.
Alkademy Press and Editorial Workflow
Alkademy Press brings editorial activities into a browser-based journal management environment designed for academic publishing. Instead of requiring editors to coordinate their work across separate applications, the platform provides role-aware access to the editorial operation.
Its editorial dashboard is designed around the responsibilities of different journal roles. An editor-in-chief, section editor, or managing editor can work with the submissions and activities relevant to their position rather than treating every user as having identical responsibilities.
This is particularly useful for journals with multiple people participating in editorial operations. A submission can move between responsible editors while its associated information remains connected to the same journal record.
Alkademy Press also maintains an audit trail of editorial activity, giving journals a historical record of important actions taken during the handling of a manuscript. This can be valuable when reviewing the progress of a submission or understanding how a particular editorial decision was reached.
Because editorial operations sit alongside submission, peer review, journal administration, and publishing capabilities, the platform can support the broader sequence of work required to operate a journal rather than focusing on a single editorial task.
What Should You Look for in Editorial Workflow Software?
When evaluating editorial workflow software, look beyond basic manuscript status tracking.
Consider whether the system can accommodate the actual structure of the journal and whether different users can perform the responsibilities assigned to them.
Important considerations include:
- Role-based editorial access
- Editor assignment
- Submission routing
- Configurable workflow stages
- Peer-review coordination
- Reviewer deadline management
- Revision handling
- Editorial decisions
- Automated notifications
- Task visibility
- Submission history
- Audit records
- Conflict-of-interest tracking
- Author communication
- Multi-journal support
- Reporting and operational insights
- Integration with publication workflows
The best solution is one that reflects how the journal actually operates. A workflow that is too rigid can create unnecessary administrative work, while one that is too loose can make responsibilities and manuscript progress difficult to follow.