OJS Editor Guide: Managing Submissions and the Review Process

As a journal editor using Open Journal Systems (OJS), you're the central figure in transforming submitted manuscripts into published articles. This guide covers everything editors need to know about managing submissions—from handling new manuscripts and assigning reviewers to making editorial decisions and moving accepted articles toward publication. Whether you're a Journal Editor, Section Editor, or handling both roles, this comprehensive guide will help you navigate the OJS editorial workflow efficiently.

Understanding Editor Roles in OJS

OJS distinguishes between different editorial roles, each with specific responsibilities and permissions:

Journal Editor

The Journal Editor has the broadest permissions and typically oversees the entire editorial operation:

• Receives all new submission notifications
• Can assign Section Editors to handle specific submissions
• Has access to all submissions regardless of section
• Makes final publication decisions
• Can manage all stages of the workflow

Section Editor

Section Editors handle submissions within their designated areas of expertise:

• Receives assignments from the Journal Editor
• Manages the review process for assigned submissions
• Communicates with authors and reviewers
• Recommends editorial decisions
• May have full decision authority depending on journal configuration

Note: In smaller journals, one person often serves as both Journal Editor and Section Editor. OJS accommodates this by allowing users to hold multiple roles.

The Editorial Dashboard

When you log in as an editor, your Dashboard is your command center. Here's what you'll see:

My Queue

Shows submissions requiring your attention, organized into:

• Unassigned: New submissions not yet assigned to a Section Editor
• My Assigned: Submissions you're responsible for as Section Editor
• My Authored: Your own submissions (to be handled by a different editor)

All Active

A complete list of all submissions currently in the editorial process, regardless of assignment.

Archives

Submissions that have been declined or published—the historical record of completed editorial work.

Tasks

Your task list shows items requiring immediate action. Tasks appear when:

• New submissions arrive
• Reviews are completed
• Authors submit revisions
• Workflow stages need attention

Stage 1: Handling New Submissions

When authors submit manuscripts, they first arrive in the Submission stage. Here's how to handle them:

Reviewing a New Submission

1. Click on the submission title to open the submission record
2. Review the uploaded files in the "Submission Files" panel
3. Check the metadata (title, abstract, authors, keywords)
4. View the Activity Log if you need the submission history

Initial Screening Questions

Before proceeding, assess whether the submission:

• Falls within the journal's scope
• Meets basic formatting and length requirements
• Is complete (all required files and information provided)
• Is original and not under consideration elsewhere
• Has potential scholarly merit (based on abstract review)

Decision Options at Submission Stage

Assign to Section Editor:

If you're a Journal Editor and want someone else to manage the review process:

1. Click "Assign" in the Participants panel
2. Select "Section Editor" as the role
3. Search for and select the appropriate editor
4. Customize the notification email if desired
5. Click "OK" to complete the assignment

Send to Review:

If the submission is ready for peer review:

1. Click "Send to Review" in the action buttons
2. Select which files should be sent to reviewers
3. Confirm your decision
4. The submission moves to the Review stage

Accept and Skip Review:

For invited articles, editorials, or content that doesn't require peer review:

1. Click "Accept and Skip Review"
2. Customize the acceptance notification
3. Select files for copyediting
4. The submission moves directly to Copyediting

Decline Submission:

If the submission is clearly unsuitable:

1. Click "Decline Submission"
2. Customize the rejection notification with feedback
3. Click "Record Editorial Decision"
4. The submission moves to Archives

Using Pre-Review Discussions

If you need more information from the author before deciding:

1. Click "Add Discussion" in the Pre-Review Discussions panel
2. Add the author as a participant
3. Write your message (request clarifications, additional files, etc.)
4. Attach any relevant documents
5. Click "OK" to send

Stage 2: Managing Peer Review

The Review stage is where you invite experts to evaluate the manuscript and ultimately make publication decisions.

Understanding the Review Screen

The Review stage shows:

• Review Files: Files available to reviewers
• Reviewers: List of assigned reviewers and their status
• Revisions: Files uploaded by authors (after revision requests)
• Review Discussions: Communication thread for this stage

Adding Reviewers

1. Click "Add Reviewer"
2. A dialog opens with several options to find reviewers

Finding Reviewers

Select Reviewer: Browse or search existing reviewers in the system:

• Filter by reviewer interests
• View reviewer statistics (completed reviews, average time, declined requests)
• Check their current workload

Create New Reviewer: If the reviewer isn't in the system:

• Enter their name and email
• Add institutional affiliation
• They'll receive registration information with the invitation

Enroll Existing User: If someone is registered but not as a reviewer:

• Search for them by name or email
• Add reviewer role to their account

Configuring the Review Request

After selecting a reviewer, configure the invitation:

Review Type:

• Anonymous Reviewer/Anonymous Author (Double-Blind): Neither party knows the other's identity
• Anonymous Reviewer/Disclosed Author (Single-Blind): Reviewer knows author identity
• Open: Both parties know each other's identities

Review Form: Select the review form for this reviewer (if multiple forms are configured).

Files to Review: Check which files the reviewer should receive.

Deadlines:

• Response Due Date: When the reviewer should accept or decline (typically 7-14 days)
• Review Due Date: When the completed review is expected (typically 21-30 days)

Email Template: Customize the invitation email as needed.

Click "Add Reviewer" to send the invitation.

Monitoring Review Progress

The Reviewers panel shows status for each reviewer:

• Request Sent: Invitation sent, awaiting response
• Request Accepted: Reviewer agreed, review in progress
• Request Declined: Reviewer refused the invitation
• Review Submitted: Completed review received
• Review Confirmed: Editor has acknowledged the review
• Request Cancelled: Invitation was withdrawn

Sending Reminders

If a reviewer is overdue:

1. Click the reviewer's name to expand their panel
2. Click "Send Reminder"
3. Customize the reminder email
4. Click "OK" to send

Tip: OJS can send automatic reminders if configured in Workflow Settings. Ask your Journal Manager to set this up.

Handling Declined Invitations

When a reviewer declines:

• Their status changes to "Request Declined"
• You should add another reviewer to maintain review coverage
• Consider asking if they can suggest alternative reviewers

Reviewing Completed Reviews

When a reviewer submits their evaluation:

1. Click "Read Review" to see their feedback
2. View their recommendation (Accept, Revisions, Reject, etc.)
3. Read comments for the editor (confidential)
4. Read comments for the author (will be shared)
5. Check responses to the review form
6. Click "Confirm" to acknowledge the review

Email to Reviewer: You can optionally send a thank-you email acknowledging their contribution.

Making Editorial Decisions

After collecting sufficient reviews (typically 2-3), make your decision using the action buttons:

Request Revisions:

For manuscripts needing minor changes without re-review:

1. Click "Request Revisions"
2. Select which reviews to share with the author
3. Set a revision deadline
4. Write your decision letter explaining required changes
5. Click "Record Editorial Decision"

Resubmit for Review:

For manuscripts needing major changes with subsequent re-review:

1. Click "Resubmit for Review"
2. Select which reviews to share
3. Explain what major changes are required
4. Click "Record Editorial Decision"

Accept Submission:

For manuscripts ready to proceed to publication:

1. Click "Accept Submission"
2. Select files for copyediting
3. Write the acceptance letter
4. Click "Record Editorial Decision"
5. The submission moves to Copyediting

Decline Submission:

For manuscripts that cannot be accepted:

1. Click "Decline Submission"
2. Select which reviews to share (can help authors improve)
3. Write a professional rejection explaining the decision
4. Click "Record Editorial Decision"
5. The submission moves to Archives

Managing Revision Rounds

When authors submit revisions:

1. You'll receive notification and see files in the "Revisions" panel
2. Review the revised manuscript and response to reviewers
3. Decide whether to:
   • Accept the revisions and move to Copyediting
   • Request further revisions
   • Send back to the same or new reviewers
   • Decline the submission

Starting a New Review Round:

If major revisions require re-review:

1. Click "New Review Round"
2. Select the revised files for the new round
3. Add reviewers (can be the same or different reviewers)
4. The process repeats

Stage 3: Overseeing Copyediting

Once a manuscript is accepted, it moves to Copyediting for language and style improvements.

Assigning a Copyeditor

1. Click "Assign" in the Participants panel
2. Select "Copyeditor" as the role
3. Choose the copyeditor
4. Customize the notification email with specific instructions
5. Click "OK"

Copyediting Workflow

The copyeditor will:

1. Download draft files from the system
2. Edit for grammar, style, and formatting
3. Upload copyedited files
4. Notify you when complete

Author Review of Copyedits

To involve the author in reviewing changes:

1. Add a discussion in Copyediting Discussions
2. Include the author as a participant
3. Attach the copyedited file
4. Request their review and approval

Moving to Production

When copyediting is complete:

1. Click "Send to Production"
2. Select which files should go to production
3. Optionally notify the author
4. Confirm your decision

Stage 4: Managing Production

The Production stage transforms copyedited files into publication-ready galleys.

Assigning a Layout Editor

1. Click "Assign" in Participants
2. Select "Layout Editor" role
3. Choose the layout editor
4. Provide instructions for galley formats needed

The Galley Creation Process

The layout editor will:

1. Download production-ready files
2. Create PDF, HTML, or other galley formats
3. Upload completed galleys
4. Notify you for review

Adding Galleys

To add a galley (if you're handling production yourself):

1. Click "Add Galley" in the Galleys panel
2. Enter a label (e.g., "PDF" or "HTML")
3. Select the language
4. Upload the galley file
5. Select the article component
6. Click "Save"

Scheduling for Publication

When galleys are ready:

1. Go to the "Publication" tab on the submission
2. Verify all metadata is correct
3. Click "Schedule for Publication"
4. Select or create an issue
5. Set page numbers (optional)
6. Configure permissions and licensing
7. Click "Save"

Publishing the Article

Articles can be published by:

• Publishing the entire issue: Go to Issues, select the future issue, and click "Publish Issue"
• Individual article publication: If the issue is already published, scheduling an article to it publishes it immediately

Managing Communications

Using Discussion Panels

Each workflow stage has its own Discussion panel:

• Pre-Review Discussions: For communication before review begins
• Review Discussions: For review-related communications
• Copyediting Discussions: For copyediting communications
• Production Discussions: For production and galley communications

Discussions are visible only to assigned participants, maintaining confidentiality.

Writing Effective Decision Letters

Good decision letters include:

• Clear statement of the decision
• Summary of reviewer feedback
• Specific guidance on required changes (for revisions)
• Encouragement and appreciation (where appropriate)
• Timeline expectations

Best Practices for Editors

Common Challenges and Solutions

Finding Qualified Reviewers

Challenge: Difficulty finding reviewers who accept invitations.

Solutions:

• Build a database of reliable reviewers over time
• Ask reviewers to suggest colleagues
• Use reviewer interests to match expertise
• Acknowledge reviewer contributions
• Consider using reviewer databases (Publons, Web of Science)

Dealing with Late Reviews

Challenge: Reviewers missing deadlines.

Solutions:

• Set up automatic reminder emails
• Send personal reminders
• Have backup reviewers ready
• Consider replacing chronically late reviewers

Conflicting Reviews

Challenge: Reviewers give contradictory recommendations.

Solutions:

• Seek an additional review
• Weigh reviews based on expertise and quality of feedback
• Use your editorial judgment
• Explain your reasoning in the decision letter

Managing Backlogs

Challenge: Too many submissions piling up.

Solutions:

• Establish processing timelines and stick to them
• Delegate to Section Editors where possible
• Perform quick desk rejections for unsuitable submissions
• Consider temporary submission limits during high-volume periods