Learn how to reduce the administrative workload of academic journal editors with workflow automation that improves efficiency and frees more time for editorial decisions.
TL;DR
- Editors spend significant time on administrative tasks.
- Workflow automation can reduce repetitive manual work.
- Automation can improve submissions, reviewer coordination, communication, and reporting.
- AI can support information-heavy editorial tasks.
- Alkademy Press brings key journal workflows together in one platform.
Academic journal editors balance editorial judgement with a significant amount of administrative work. Evaluating manuscripts and reviewer feedback requires expertise, while tasks such as sending reminders, updating statuses, and managing records are more procedural.
These repetitive tasks can consume valuable time and create unnecessary delays when handled manually. Academic journal workflow automation helps teams streamline routine processes, reduce manual coordination, and improve visibility across the editorial workflow.
Alkademy Press is a journal management system that brings manuscript submission, peer review, publishing, and AI-assisted editorial tools together in one platform. By connecting these activities, it can help journal teams spend less time managing processes and more time on editorial work.
What Administrative Work Do Academic Journal Editors Handle?
Editorial administration extends across the entire manuscript lifecycle.
Depending on the journal and publishing model, common activities include:
- Processing new submissions
- Checking submission information
- Assigning or inviting reviewers
- Monitoring reviewer responses
- Sending reviewer reminders
- Communicating with authors
- Tracking revisions
- Updating manuscript statuses
- Maintaining editorial records
- Preparing routine reports
- Coordinating publication activities
These tasks are not necessarily difficult individually. The problem is repetition.
An editor managing many manuscripts may perform similar actions repeatedly, often across different stages of the editorial workflow. When those actions are handled manually, the cumulative administrative burden can become significant.
Identify Where Your Editorial Workflow Creates Unnecessary Work
Before automating anything, journals need to understand how their current workflow operates. This makes it easier to identify where automation can have the greatest impact.
Map the Current Editorial Workflow
Document each major step from manuscript submission through publication. Include the people involved, systems used, decisions made, and administrative tasks performed at each stage.
This provides a clear picture of where time is being spent and where processes may be unnecessarily complicated.
Find Repetitive Manual Tasks
Look for activities that editors perform repeatedly, such as:
- Sending reminders
- Updating manuscript statuses
- Assigning reviewers
- Organising submission information
- Generating routine reports
These are often strong candidates for workflow automation.
Identify Workflow Bottlenecks
A bottleneck occurs when one part of the process consistently slows everything else down. Common examples include delayed reviewer invitations, manual follow-ups, or waiting for information to be transferred between systems.
Identifying these points helps journals focus automation efforts where they can make the biggest difference.
Separate Editorial Work From Administrative Work
Not every task should be automated. Journals should distinguish between routine administration and work that requires academic judgement.
Administrative tasks such as reminders and status updates may be suitable for automation, while manuscript decisions, ethical assessments, and final editorial judgements should remain with qualified editors.
How to Reduce the Administrative Workload of Academic Journal Editors
Reducing editorial workload starts with identifying tasks that consume time without requiring significant academic judgement. These are often the best opportunities for better processes, automation, and connected tools.
Automate Repetitive Editorial Tasks
Many routine activities can be automated, including:
- Manuscript submission processing
- Reviewer invitations and follow-ups
- Author and reviewer notifications
- Status updates
- Routine reports
Automating these tasks reduces manual follow-ups and gives editors more time for manuscript evaluation and decision-making.
Centralise Editorial Information
Keeping submissions, reviewer activity, communications, revisions, and editorial records in one place makes information easier to access.
Editors spend less time searching across different systems and have a clearer view of what needs attention.
Reduce Unnecessary Handoffs
Moving information between disconnected tools can create delays and duplicate work. Connecting submission, peer review, communication, and publishing activities can make the workflow easier to manage.
A connected process also reduces the need for editors to manually transfer information from one system to another.
Define Clear Responsibilities
Every stage of the editorial workflow should have clear ownership. Editors should know which tasks they are responsible for and which can be handled by automated processes or other team members.
This helps prevent duplicated work and keeps manuscripts moving.
Use AI for Information-Heavy Tasks
AI can support tasks that involve processing large amounts of information. For example, it can assist with:
- Manuscript screening
- Organising submission information
- Editorial triage
- Summarising reviewer or author feedback
These tools should support editors rather than make important academic decisions on their behalf.
Review and Improve the Workflow Regularly
Automation is not a one-time fix. Journals should regularly review their workflows to identify new bottlenecks, unnecessary steps, or tasks that could be handled more efficiently.
As submission volumes and publishing requirements change, the editorial workflow should change with them.
Using AI to Reduce Editorial Administrative Work
AI adds another layer of support by helping editors handle information-heavy tasks that would otherwise take considerable time.
AI-Assisted Manuscript Screening
AI can perform preliminary checks and flag potential issues for editors to review, helping reduce the time spent on initial manuscript assessment.
Organising Manuscript Information
AI can help structure information from submissions, reviews, and revisions, making important details easier to find and work with.
Supporting Editorial Triage
AI can surface relevant information that helps editors assess submissions and determine what may require closer attention.
Summarising Editorial Information
AI can summarise lengthy manuscript information, reviewer feedback, or author responses, giving editors a quicker way to understand key points.
Keeping Human Oversight in the Workflow
AI should support editorial work, not make important decisions independently. Editors remain responsible for evaluating manuscripts, interpreting AI outputs, and making final editorial decisions.
Why Manual Editorial Workflows Create Bottlenecks
The main problem with manual administration is not simply the number of tasks. It is the coordination required between tasks.
For example, a reviewer workflow may involve:
- Identifying an appropriate reviewer
- Sending an invitation
- Waiting for a response
- Recording the response
- Sending a reminder when necessary
- Tracking the review deadline
- Following up on an overdue review
- Updating the manuscript workflow
Each step creates another opportunity for an editor to intervene.
Disconnected systems can increase this friction further. If submission information, reviewer activity, communication records, and reporting data are maintained separately, editors may spend time transferring information or checking multiple systems simply to determine what needs attention.
Automation is most useful when it removes this repetitive coordination without obscuring the decisions that editors need to make.
How Journal Management Systems Reduce Administrative Work
A journal management system can connect many of these processes, giving editors one place to manage their work.
Bringing Editorial Tasks Into One Platform
Submissions, peer review, communications, and publishing can be managed within the same system, reducing the need to switch between multiple tools.
Connecting Submission and Peer Review Workflows
When these workflows are connected, manuscript information can move between stages more efficiently, reducing manual transfers.
Automating Routine Editorial Activities
Journal management systems can automate recurring activities such as:
- Notifications
- Reminders
- Status updates
- Workflow actions
Improving Editorial Workflow Visibility
A centralised system gives editors a clearer view of manuscript progress and helps them quickly identify submissions that need attention.
Alkademy Press for Journal Workflow Management
Alkademy Press brings core journal publishing activities into one platform, helping editorial teams reduce the manual coordination involved in managing a journal.
Managing Manuscript Submissions
Editors can manage manuscript submissions, track progress, and keep submission information organised within the same workflow.
Supporting Peer Review Coordination
The platform helps editorial teams manage reviewer activity and keep peer review moving without relying on separate tools for routine coordination.
Automating Routine Editorial Tasks
Routine activities such as notifications, reminders, and workflow updates can be handled more efficiently, reducing repetitive administrative work.
Using AI-Assisted Editorial Tools
AI-assisted tools can support tasks such as manuscript screening and information processing, giving editors additional support during the editorial workflow.
Managing the Publishing Workflow in One Place
With submissions, peer review, publishing, and editorial activities connected, teams can manage more of their journal operations from one platform.
Common Mistakes When Automating Editorial Workflows
Automating a broken process
Automation cannot compensate for an unnecessarily complicated workflow.
Simplify the process first, then automate the parts that genuinely benefit from automation.
Automating tasks that require judgement
A workflow may be technically automatable without being appropriate for full automation.
Editorial decisions, ethical assessments, and other consequential judgements require appropriate human oversight.
Introducing AI without governance
AI should not be added simply because it is available.
Before using AI with manuscript or reviewer information, journals should establish appropriate policies for confidentiality, data handling, human review, error management, and accountability.
Ignoring exceptions
Real editorial workflows contain exceptions.
A reviewer may decline after accepting an invitation. An author may request additional time. A manuscript may require an unusual editorial route.
An effective automated workflow needs clear ways for editors to intervene when the normal rules do not apply.
Measuring features instead of outcomes
The number of automated actions is not itself a measure of success.
The more meaningful question is whether automation improves the journal’s workflow—for example, by reducing unnecessary manual intervention or making outstanding actions easier to identify.
FAQs
Academic journal workflow automation uses software to handle repetitive activities within the publishing process, such as notifications, reminders, status updates, and submission management.
Common examples include submission processing, reviewer invitations and reminders, author notifications, manuscript status updates, and routine reporting.
Automation handles repetitive administrative tasks, reducing manual follow-ups and information management. This gives editors more time to focus on manuscript assessment and editorial decisions.
AI can assist with tasks such as manuscript screening, information organisation, and editorial triage. However, important academic and ethical decisions should remain under human oversight.
They connect key publishing activities within one system, reducing manual transfers, duplicated work, and the need to manage multiple disconnected tools.
Final Thoughts On How to Reduce the Administrative Workload
Editorial work requires expertise, attention, and good judgement. Editors should not have to spend most of their time chasing reviewers, updating records, or managing routine communications.
The right combination of workflow automation and human oversight can remove much of this administrative burden while keeping editors in control of the work that matters most.
Looking to reduce the administrative workload of your journal team? Alkademy Press brings manuscript submission, peer review, publishing, and AI-assisted editorial tools together in one journal management platform.
