Manuscript workflow is the sequence of stages a scholarly manuscript passes through from the moment it is submitted to a journal until it reaches an editorial outcome or moves toward publication. It describes the manuscript’s progression through activities such as submission, assessment, review, revision, and decision-making.
For journals using Alkademy Press, a manuscript workflow provides a digital path for handling these stages within the journal’s publishing environment. Instead of treating each manuscript as a separate document that moves between email accounts, spreadsheets, and folders, the workflow keeps the submission, files, participants, review activity, revisions, and decisions connected to its record.
The exact path can differ between journals. A research article may require several rounds of peer review, while another submission may be declined during an early assessment. Some manuscripts may also be returned to authors for corrections before they can proceed. A useful manuscript workflow therefore needs to accommodate different outcomes rather than assuming every submission follows an identical route.
What Does Manuscript Workflow Do?
A manuscript workflow defines how a submitted piece of research progresses through the journal’s operational process.
A basic workflow might follow:
Submission → Assessment → Review → Revision → Decision → Publication
However, the actual sequence can contain additional stages. An editor may request clarification before assigning reviewers, a reviewer may decline an invitation, an author may submit a revised version, or an accepted manuscript may move into production.
The workflow gives each stage a defined place in the manuscript’s lifecycle. It also helps establish which actions have already taken place and what needs to happen next.
For authors, this can provide greater visibility into the progress of their work. For editors and journal staff, it creates a practical way to organize submissions that are at different points in the process.
A manuscript workflow is therefore more than a series of status labels. It represents the operational journey of the manuscript and the activities associated with each stage.
Key Features of a Manuscript Workflow
The capabilities included in a manuscript workflow depend on the journal’s editorial model. Several components are commonly important.
Submission Entry
The workflow begins when an author formally submits a manuscript.
The system creates a record for the work and associates the submitted information and files with that record. This provides the starting point for subsequent editorial activities.
A clear starting stage also makes it easier to distinguish newly received manuscripts from submissions that are already being processed.
Manuscript Identification
Each submission normally needs a unique identifier.
A manuscript ID allows editors, reviewers, authors, and administrative staff to refer to the correct submission without relying solely on its title.
This becomes increasingly valuable when a journal is handling multiple articles with similar subjects, titles, or author names.
File and Version Management
A manuscript can change considerably during the editorial process.
The original submission may be followed by revised manuscripts, updated figures, supplementary materials, or other files. A workflow should keep these versions associated with the appropriate submission.
Version management reduces the risk of editors or reviewers accidentally working with an outdated document.
Editorial Assessment
After submission, the manuscript may undergo an initial assessment.
The journal can determine whether the work is sufficiently complete, relevant to the publication, and suitable for further consideration.
This stage can lead to several outcomes, including progression to peer review, a request for corrections, or an early editorial decision.
Editor Assignment
A manuscript may need to be allocated to a particular editor according to the journal’s organizational structure or subject expertise.
Assignment establishes responsibility for the next stage and allows the relevant editor to access the manuscript and associated information.
For larger journals, this can involve several levels of editorial responsibility.
Peer Review
When a manuscript proceeds to review, the workflow incorporates reviewer-related activities.
Reviewers may need to be selected, invited, assigned deadlines, and given access to the appropriate manuscript files. Their reports then become part of the information available to the responsible editor.
The manuscript may remain in review until the journal has received enough evaluations to proceed.
Revision Cycles
A manuscript may pass through more than one revision.
Following reviewer or editorial feedback, authors can submit a new version for further consideration. The workflow should distinguish that revision from earlier versions while preserving the submission’s history.
This creates a chronological record of how the manuscript developed during the editorial process.
Editorial Outcome
Eventually, the manuscript reaches an editorial outcome.
The decision may be acceptance, rejection, or a request for further revision. The outcome should be recorded against the manuscript so that the journal has a reliable account of what happened.
If accepted, the workflow may continue into publication-related activities.
Status Changes
A manuscript’s status communicates where it currently sits in the process.
Examples can include submitted, awaiting assessment, under review, revision requested, revised submission received, and decision made.
Clear statuses help different users understand the manuscript’s current position without having to reconstruct its history from individual communications.
Workflow History
A useful workflow maintains a record of significant events associated with the manuscript.
This can include submissions, assignments, review activity, revisions, decisions, and other changes.
The resulting history gives editorial teams a chronological view of the manuscript’s journey.
Who Uses a Manuscript Workflow?
A manuscript workflow involves everyone who contributes to or oversees the handling of a submission.
Authors begin the process by submitting their work and may return to the system when revisions are requested.
Editors assess manuscripts, oversee review, interpret reviewer feedback, and determine the appropriate editorial outcome.
Managing editors may supervise the movement of submissions and ensure that outstanding work receives attention.
Section editors can manage manuscripts belonging to particular areas of a journal.
Reviewers participate during the evaluation stage and provide reports that inform editorial decisions.
Editorial assistants may handle administrative activities, monitor progress, and support communication between participants.
The workflow connects these different roles without requiring every participant to have the same responsibilities or access.
Manuscript Workflow vs. Editorial Workflow
Although the terms are closely connected, they describe slightly different perspectives.
A manuscript workflow concentrates on the movement and state of the submitted work.
An editorial workflow places greater emphasis on the activities performed by the people responsible for processing that work.
For example, a manuscript may have the status “awaiting reviewer reports.” The editorial workflow behind that status could include selecting reviewers, sending invitations, recording responses, monitoring deadlines, and following up where necessary.
In practical journal software, the two concepts often operate together. The manuscript provides the object being processed, while the editorial workflow describes the work performed around it.
Manuscript Workflow vs. Manuscript Tracking
Manuscript tracking is primarily concerned with knowing where a submission is and what has happened to it.
Manuscript workflow goes further by defining the stages and actions through which the submission should progress.
Tracking answers questions such as:
- Where is the manuscript now?
- When was its status last changed?
- Who is currently handling it?
Workflow addresses questions such as:
- What should happen at this stage?
- Who should take the next action?
- What event allows the manuscript to progress?
A journal may use both capabilities together. Tracking provides visibility, while workflow provides the underlying process.
Why Is Manuscript Workflow Important?
A clear manuscript workflow helps journals handle submissions consistently, especially when several manuscripts are being processed simultaneously.
Without a defined process, editorial teams can lose track of outstanding reviews, revisions, assignments, or decisions. Authors may also have difficulty understanding what is happening with their submissions.
A well-organized workflow can help journals:
- Keep manuscripts moving between stages
- Establish responsibility for submissions
- Preserve earlier manuscript versions
- Reduce administrative confusion
- Identify delayed submissions
- Coordinate editorial and review activities
- Maintain a history of important actions
- Improve communication with authors
- Support consistent handling of submissions
- Prepare accepted manuscripts for later publication
The value of the workflow increases as the journal grows. A process that works for a small number of submissions can become difficult to maintain manually when the publication receives a much larger volume of research.
Common Manuscript Workflow Challenges
One challenge is unclear ownership. A manuscript may be visible to several people without anyone knowing who is expected to act on it.
Another is status ambiguity. Labels such as “in progress” may provide little useful information about what has actually happened or what the next step should be.
Version confusion can also become a problem when authors submit several files over the course of a revision cycle. Without proper organization, reviewers or editors may access the wrong version.
Delayed reviews present another difficulty. A manuscript can remain inactive while waiting for reviewer responses, particularly when deadlines are tracked manually.
Finally, workflows can become overly rigid. Different article types and journal policies may require different paths, so software should support the publication’s actual editorial practices rather than forcing every manuscript through exactly the same sequence.
AI and Manuscript Workflow
AI can be incorporated into manuscript workflows to assist with selected activities surrounding a submission.
For example, AI can help identify similarities between manuscripts, surface information for editorial assessment, or assist with administrative tasks associated with processing incoming work.
The most useful role for AI depends on the journal’s needs. Some publications may benefit from automated checks at the beginning of the workflow, while others may place greater value on assistance during reviewer coordination, revision handling, or editorial communication.
AI should complement the workflow rather than obscure responsibility. Editors still need to evaluate research quality, interpret reviewer feedback, consider journal policy, and make decisions appropriate to the publication.
Alkademy Press and Manuscript Workflow
Alkademy Press provides a digital environment where manuscripts can remain connected to their editorial records as they move through different stages of journal processing.
An important part of this is the platform’s support for multiple rounds of peer review and structured reviewer feedback. A manuscript that requires additional evaluation does not have to be treated as an entirely new submission. Its ongoing review activity can remain associated with the same editorial record.
The platform also supports draft saving and co-author participation during submission, giving authors a way to prepare their work before formally entering it into the journal’s workflow. This is useful for submissions that require information or files from several contributors.
For editorial teams, the connection between manuscript records and the wider journal operation means that submission information, review activity, revisions, and editorial actions can remain associated with the same piece of work as it progresses.
This makes Alkademy Press particularly relevant to journals looking for a workflow that follows the manuscript across its lifecycle rather than treating submission, review, and editorial administration as completely separate activities.
What Should You Look for in Manuscript Workflow Software?
When evaluating manuscript workflow software, consider how well it represents the actual journey of a submission.
The system should provide enough flexibility to accommodate different editorial policies while maintaining clear visibility into each manuscript.
Useful capabilities include:
- Defined manuscript stages
- Unique manuscript identification
- File and version management
- Editor assignment
- Reviewer coordination
- Multiple review rounds
- Revision handling
- Status updates
- Deadline monitoring
- Author communication
- Editorial decisions
- Submission history
- Audit records
- Role-based access
- Search and filtering
- Multi-journal support
- Reporting capabilities
- Connections between editorial and publishing activities
It is also worth considering the author’s experience. A technically sophisticated workflow can still create frustration if contributors cannot easily submit revisions, identify the current status of their manuscript, or understand what action is expected from them.
The strongest manuscript workflow is one that gives every participant enough information to perform their role while keeping the progression of the submission understandable from beginning to end.