Learn how to Preserve Peer-Review and Editorial History in academic journals, including manuscript records, editorial decisions, reviews, and publishing history.
TL;DR
- Peer-review records document how manuscripts were evaluated and how decisions were reached.
- Editorial history includes submissions, revisions, decisions, comments, and workflow activity.
- Preserving these records helps journals maintain continuity and a complete publishing history.
- Structured archives make editorial records easier to manage, preserve, and migrate.
- Alkademy Press uses the Press Archive Package (PAP) to preserve peer-review and editorial records as part of a journal’s archive.
When a journal publishes an article, readers usually see the finished paper and its publication details.
What they do not see is the editorial work that happened before publication. A manuscript may have gone through several versions, multiple rounds of peer review, reviewer feedback, editorial decisions, and internal discussions before reaching its final form. Together, these records form an important part of the journal’s publishing history.
Preserving this history matters for more than record-keeping. Editorial teams change, journals move between platforms, and institutions may need to access historical publishing information years after a decision was made. Without an organized way to retain these records, valuable information can become difficult to find, disconnected from the manuscripts it relates to, or lost when systems and workflows change.
Alkademy Press provides tools for managing the journal publishing process, including submissions, manuscript versions, peer review, and editorial activity. Through its Press Archive Package (PAP), journals can also preserve these records as part of a structured archive, giving publishers a practical way to retain the editorial history behind their publications.
Recommended for You: Press Archive Package (PAP): The Complete Guide to Academic Journal Archives
What Is Peer-Review and Editorial History?
Peer-review and editorial history refers to the records created as a manuscript moves through a journal’s publishing process. It can begin with the original submission and continue through revisions, reviewer assessments, editorial decisions, comments, and the final publication.
These records can help explain not only what a journal published, but also the editorial process that led to that publication.
What Are Peer-Review Records?
Peer-review records document the evaluation of a manuscript by reviewers and can include information such as:
- Review rounds and their status
- Reviewer references
- Ratings and recommendations
- Reviewer feedback
- Editorial decisions
- Review deadlines
- Conflict-of-interest information
- Dates associated with review activity
The exact information retained will depend on the journal’s workflow and the records available for export.
What Are Editorial Records?
Editorial records cover the broader activity surrounding manuscript management and publication. They can include:
- Submission information
- Manuscript versions and revisions
- Author and co-author information
- Editorial decisions
- Review comments
- Workflow activity
- Metadata associated with submissions
While peer review is one part of the editorial process, editorial history provides the wider context around how a manuscript was handled.
Why Are These Records Part of a Journal’s Publishing History?
The final published article represents the outcome of the publishing process, but it does not capture everything that happened along the way.
A complete publishing history can help a journal understand:
- When a manuscript was submitted
- How many versions were created
- Which review rounds took place
- What feedback was provided
- How editorial decisions were recorded
- How contributors were associated with the manuscript
Keeping these records organized gives journals a fuller historical record and makes important information easier to access when it is needed.
Why Should Academic Journals Preserve Peer-Review Records?
- Maintain a complete publishing record: Preserve submissions, revisions, reviews, and editorial activity alongside published articles.
- Support editorial continuity: Help new editors and staff understand past submissions, decisions, and workflows.
- Simplify journal migration: Provide a reliable reference when moving records to a new publishing platform.
- Improve institutional record keeping: Keep historical journal records organized and accessible instead of scattered across emails, documents, and files.
What Peer-Review Records Should an Academic Journal Preserve?
A strong peer-review archive should preserve enough information to show how a manuscript was evaluated and how the review process progressed. The goal is not simply to retain reviewer comments, but to keep the records connected to the submission and its review history.
Review Rounds
Manuscripts may go through more than one round of review, particularly when authors are asked to revise and resubmit. Journals should preserve information that distinguishes each review stage, including:
- Review round number
- Review status
- Opening and closing dates
- Person responsible for opening or closing the round
- Reason for closing the round
- Related metadata
This makes it easier to understand the sequence of the review process later.
Individual Reviews
Individual review records provide the detail behind each review round. Depending on the journal’s workflow, records may include:
- Reviewer reference
- Rating
- Review status
- Recommendation or decision
- Written feedback
- Due date
- Conflict-of-interest information
- Creation and update dates
Preserving these details helps maintain the context surrounding editorial decisions.
Reviewer Information
Reviewer information should be preserved carefully and handled according to the journal’s review model and privacy requirements.
A journal’s records may connect a review to a reviewer reference without exposing information unnecessarily. Where anonymous or blinded peer review is used, publishers should take particular care when storing, exporting, and sharing reviewer-related data.
Editorial and Review Comments
Comments can provide useful context that may not appear in a formal review or final decision. Journals should consider preserving comments associated with:
- A submission
- A specific manuscript version
- An editorial or review participant
- Related or parent comments
- Dates of the discussion
Keeping these conversations connected to the relevant manuscript helps preserve the wider editorial context.
What Editorial Records Should an Academic Journal Preserve?
Peer review is only one part of editorial history. A complete record should also capture the information that describes how manuscripts entered the journal, changed over time, and moved through the editorial workflow.
Manuscript Submission Records
Submission records establish the starting point of a manuscript’s editorial history.
Important information can include:
- Submission ID
- Author reference
- Title and abstract
- Keywords
- DOI, where applicable
- Submission status
- Metadata
- Creation and update dates
These records help distinguish a manuscript’s original submission from its later versions and final publication.
Manuscript Versions and Revisions
A manuscript can change significantly between its initial submission and final publication. Preserving each recorded version helps maintain that history.
Useful version information includes:
- Version number
- Review round
- Filename
- File size
- Metadata
- Location of the associated manuscript file
For journals, retaining version history can be particularly useful when reviewing past editorial activity or preparing records for migration.
Author and Co-Author Information
Contributor information should remain connected to the manuscripts they worked on. Depending on the available records, this can include:
- Names
- Affiliations
- ORCID
- Author order
- Submission relationship
- Contributor status
Accurate contributor records also make it easier to understand who was associated with a manuscript at different stages of its editorial history.
Editorial Decisions and Workflow History
Editorial decisions provide an important link between peer review and publication. Journals should preserve relevant decision records alongside the submission, reviews, and manuscript versions they relate to.
The broader workflow history can help answer questions such as:
- What happened to a submission?
- Which review round led to a decision?
- Which manuscript version was being considered?
- What editorial activity took place before publication?
By keeping these records connected, journals can maintain a clearer and more useful account of their publishing process. Alkademy Press supports this approach by organizing submissions, versions, reviews, comments, and related records within the journal’s publishing environment and its Press Archive Package.
How to Organize Peer-Review and Editorial Records
Preserving editorial records is most useful when the information remains organized and connected. A journal should be able to trace a manuscript from submission through review, revision, editorial decisions, and publication without having to piece together information from separate systems.
Keep Records Connected to the Submission
Reviews, comments, decisions, and manuscript versions should remain associated with the submission they relate to. This connection provides context and makes historical records easier to understand.
For example, a reviewer comment is more useful when it can be traced to the specific manuscript and review round where it was created.
Preserve Manuscript Version History
Do not treat the final manuscript as the only important version. Earlier versions can show how a manuscript changed in response to reviewer and editorial feedback.
A useful record should identify:
- Version number
- Related review round
- File information
- Associated metadata
- Location of the manuscript file
Maintain Structured Metadata
Consistent metadata makes editorial records easier to search, interpret, transfer, and preserve.
Relevant metadata may include:
- Submission and manuscript identifiers
- Author and contributor information
- Keywords
- DOI
- Dates
- Status
- Relationships between records
Structured information is particularly valuable when records need to be reviewed or moved to another system.
Separate Publishing Records From Authentication Data
Publishing records may contain information about users, authors, reviewers, and editors, but they should not contain authentication credentials.
Passwords and other sensitive authentication information should remain outside journal archives. In PAP, passwords are excluded from the export.
How a Structured Journal Archive Supports Peer-Review Preservation
A structured journal archive brings related publishing records together instead of leaving them scattered across emails, folders, spreadsheets, and separate systems.
Centralizing Editorial Records
Centralization makes it easier to preserve submissions, manuscript versions, reviews, review rounds, comments, and related information in one organized archive.
This gives publishers a clearer view of the journal’s historical editorial activity.
Connecting Reviews to Manuscripts and Versions
A review should be understandable in context. Connecting reviews to submissions and manuscript versions helps publishers identify which work was reviewed and during which stage of the editorial process.
Preserving Records for Future Access
Editorial records may need to be accessed long after a manuscript has been processed. A structured archive provides a more organized way to retain these records for future reference.
Supporting Data Portability
A structured archive can also make journal records easier to retain independently of the live publishing system. This can be useful when a publisher needs to transfer data, change platforms, or maintain an institutional copy of its records.
Preserving Peer-Review History During Journal Migration
Moving a journal to a new publishing platform requires careful attention to historical editorial data. Losing peer-review records during migration can create gaps in the journal’s publishing history.
Identify Records Before Migration
Start by determining what needs to be preserved. This may include:
- Submissions
- Manuscript versions
- Review rounds
- Individual reviews
- Editorial comments
- Contributor information
- Associated files
A clear inventory provides a baseline for the migration.
Export Peer-Review and Editorial Data
Export the relevant records in a structured format where possible. The export should preserve relationships between submissions, versions, reviews, comments, and contributors.
This makes the information easier to interpret and validate during the migration process.
Preserve Associated Manuscript Files
Editorial records are often closely tied to the files being reviewed. Manuscript files should therefore be preserved alongside the records that identify their submission and version.
Keeping these elements connected reduces the risk of ending up with editorial records that point to missing or unidentified files.
Validate Records After Migration
After migration, compare the new system against the preserved archive or migration inventory.
Check that important information such as:
- Submissions
- Manuscript versions
- Review records
- Editorial comments
- Contributor information
- Manuscript files
has been transferred correctly.
A structured archive such as the Press Archive Package (PAP) can provide a useful reference during this process, helping publishers maintain a clearer record of what existed before the migration.
How Alkademy Press Preserves Peer-Review and Editorial History
Alkademy Press treats the editorial process as an important part of a journal’s publishing record. Through the Press Archive Package (PAP), journals can preserve the records created as manuscripts move through submission, review, revision, and publication.
PAP can include:
- Manuscript submission records
- Co-author and contributor information
- Manuscript versions and revisions
- Review rounds
- Individual peer reviews
- Editorial and review comments
- Journal members and user records
- Associated manuscript files
- Journal branding files
These records are organized within the archive so that related information can be connected to the submissions and manuscript versions they belong to. This gives publishers a more complete representation of their journal’s editorial history.
Best Practices for Preserving Academic Publishing Records
Preserving editorial history is easier when journals establish a consistent approach to managing their records.
Preserve More Than Final Publications
Do not limit the archive to published articles. Submissions, revisions, reviews, decisions, and editorial comments can provide important historical context.
Keep Manuscript Versions Organized
Retain meaningful manuscript versions and ensure they remain associated with the relevant submission and review round.
Retain Review and Editorial History
Preserve review rounds, reviewer feedback, decisions, and relevant comments so the editorial process remains understandable over time.
Protect Personal Information
Author, reviewer, editor, and user information should be handled carefully. Access to archived records should be limited to authorized personnel.
Include Associated Files
Preserve the manuscript files and other relevant journal assets alongside the records that describe them.
Maintain Structured Metadata
Use consistent identifiers, dates, statuses, contributor information, and relationships between records to make archives easier to understand and manage.
Keep Portable Archives
Maintain structured copies of important journal records so they remain accessible when publishing systems, teams, or institutional arrangements change.
Verify Archive Integrity
Use available integrity information, such as checksums, to help verify that archived files have not been unintentionally changed or corrupted.
FAQs
Peer-review records document how manuscripts were evaluated during the review process. They can include review rounds, reviewer references, ratings, feedback, decisions, due dates, and conflict-of-interest information.
Preserving peer-review history helps journals maintain a more complete publishing record. It can also support editorial continuity, institutional record-keeping, future reference, and platform migration.
A peer-review archive can include review rounds, individual reviews, reviewer references, feedback, decisions, review dates, conflict-of-interest information, and comments connected to the relevant submissions and manuscript versions.
Journals should identify the records they need to retain, export submissions and editorial data in a structured format, preserve associated manuscript files, and validate the records after migration. Maintaining an archive before migration provides a useful reference throughout the process.
Alkademy Press uses the Press Archive Package (PAP) to provide a structured archive of journal records. PAP can include submissions, manuscript versions, review rounds, individual reviews, editorial comments, contributor information, users, and associated files.
Final Thoughts On How to Preserve Peer-Review and Editorial History in Academic Journals
The published article may be the part of a journal’s work that readers see, but it is not the whole story. Manuscripts, revisions, peer reviews, editorial decisions, comments, and contributor records can all form part of the history behind published research.
Preserving these records gives journals a clearer and more complete publishing history. It also makes that history easier to retain when editorial teams change, institutions reorganize, or publishing platforms evolve.
With the Press Archive Package, Alkademy Press provides journals with a structured way to preserve this information alongside their published content and associated files.
Ready to manage your journal’s editorial workflow and preserve its publishing history? Explore Alkademy Press to manage submissions, peer review, editorial activity, and publishing in one platform.
