Online Manuscript Submission and Peer Review for Design Journals: Building an Efficient Editorial Workflow

When submissions are managed through personal email accounts, disconnected spreadsheets and unstructured folders, the journal becomes vulnerable to lost files, delayed reviews, inconsistent decisions and incomplete records. Authors may not know whether their manuscript has been received. Reviewers may receive the wrong version. Editors may struggle to identify overdue tasks or retrieve the history behind a decision.

A structured online manuscript submission and peer-review system addresses these problems by giving every manuscript a clear record, status, responsible editor, file history and decision pathway.

For a multidisciplinary publication such as the International Journal of Arts Architecture & Design, an efficient editorial workflow is not merely an administrative convenience. It supports fairness, research integrity, author confidence and sustainable journal development.

Why Design Journals Need a Specialist Editorial Workflow

A generic document-approval process is often insufficient for creative research. Design journals must manage forms of evidence and authorship that may not fit a conventional text-based model.

Multiple Types of Scholarly Content

A design journal may receive:

• Original research articles
• Architectural case studies
• Visual essays
• Practice-based research
• Design pedagogy studies
• Material experiments
• Product and prototype evaluations
• Exhibition reviews
• Film and media research
• Critical commentaries
• Book reviews
• Short communications
• Technical notes
• Special-issue submissions

Each category may require different word limits, reviewer criteria and supporting files.

Complex Visual Material

Authors may upload high-resolution photographs, architectural plans, maps, diagrams, artworks or process documentation. The editorial team must verify whether these materials are:

• Relevant to the research
• Legible at publication size
• Correctly captioned
• Properly credited
• Covered by reproduction permission
• Anonymised where required
• Suitable for online and PDF publication
• Accessible to readers using assistive technologies

Practice-Based Research

Practice-based manuscripts may use creative activity as a method of enquiry. Reviewers must determine whether the submission contains a clear question, documented process, critical context and identifiable contribution to knowledge.

The workflow should therefore allow authors to submit creative outputs while requiring enough explanatory material for rigorous academic evaluation.

Interdisciplinary Reviewer Matching

A paper on digital reconstruction of vernacular architecture may require expertise in heritage, architecture and digital documentation. A study of AI-assisted textile design may need reviewers who understand textile practice, design methodology and artificial intelligence.

A well-configured system should help editors record reviewer expertise and select evaluators who can assess the manuscript appropriately.

Problems With Email-Based Manuscript Management

Email may remain useful for communication, but it should not function as the journal’s main editorial database.

Manuscripts Can Be Lost or Overlooked

A submission may arrive in one editor’s inbox, while revised files go to another. If an editor changes role, leaves the institution or loses access to the account, the journal may lose part of its record.

File Versions Become Confusing

Authors frequently submit revised manuscripts, response letters, images and supplementary files. Without systematic version control, editors and reviewers may work on outdated documents.

Review Deadlines Are Difficult to Track

A spreadsheet may record a due date, but it does not necessarily send reminders or show whether the reviewer has opened the invitation. Editors must monitor every assignment manually.

Decisions Become Inconsistent

If decision letters are written independently each time, authors may receive incomplete or contradictory instructions. Templates and documented decision stages improve consistency while allowing editors to personalise feedback.

Confidentiality Risks Increase

Manuscripts sent through personal accounts may be forwarded incorrectly or stored without appropriate access controls. This is especially serious for unpublished creative work, confidential research data and commercially sensitive design prototypes.

Management Cannot See the Overall Workload

Without a central dashboard, the Editor-in-Chief may not know how many manuscripts are awaiting screening, reviewer assignment, revision or production.

An online system creates institutional continuity and makes workflow problems visible before they become serious.

What an Online Manuscript Submission System Should Do

A professional journal platform should manage the full journey from initial submission to publication.

Essential capabilities include:

• Author registration
• Structured submission forms
• Manuscript and supplementary-file uploads
• Submission checklist confirmation
• Author and affiliation records
• Editor assignment
• Reviewer invitation
• Confidential review forms
• Revision management
• Decision-letter generation
• File-version control
• Status tracking
• Email notifications
• Production management
• Issue assignment
• Article publication
• DOI and metadata fields
• Searchable archives
• Role-based access
• Administrative reporting
• Secure backups

The platform should reduce repetitive administrative work while keeping academic decisions under editorial control.

Stage 1: Author Registration and Submission

The quality of the editorial workflow begins with the author’s submission experience.

Use a Structured Submission Form

Instead of asking authors to provide all information inside a cover email, the journal should collect standard metadata through defined fields.

A submission form may request:

• Manuscript title
• Short title
• Article type
• Abstract
• Keywords
• Author names
• Corresponding author
• Affiliations
• Email addresses
• ORCID identifiers
• Funding information
• Conflict-of-interest declaration
• Ethical approval information
• AI-use disclosure
• Suggested reviewers
• Opposed reviewers
• Cover letter
• Manuscript file
• Figures and tables
• Supplementary materials

Structured information can later support peer review, article production and metadata registration.

Ask Authors to Select the Correct Article Type

Article type influences the screening and review process. A visual essay may need different assessment criteria from an empirical user-experience study.

The platform should display concise descriptions of each category so that authors can select accurately.

Use a Submission Checklist

Authors should confirm that:

• The manuscript fits the journal’s scope
• The submission is original
• It is not under review elsewhere
• Author information is accurate
• Required ethical approval has been obtained
• Conflicts have been disclosed
• Images and third-party content have permission
• References follow the required style
• Files are anonymised where applicable
• AI use has been disclosed according to journal policy

A checklist does not replace editorial verification, but it establishes expectations before submission.

Design-Journal File Requirements

The platform should permit appropriately configured uploads for:

• Main manuscript
• Anonymised manuscript
• Title page
• Cover letter
• Figures
• Architectural drawings
• Tables
• Response-to-reviewers letter
• Data files
• Audio or video
• Appendices
• Permission letters

File labels should be clear. Authors should not have to upload every item under an ambiguous “additional file” category.

Stage 2: Administrative Completeness Check

Once a submission arrives, the editorial office should perform an administrative check before academic screening.

This stage may confirm:

• All required files are present
• Author details are complete
• The manuscript is readable
• The article type is correct
• Figures and captions correspond
• References are present
• The manuscript is anonymised if required
• Ethical statements have been included
• Permissions appear complete
• The submission checklist has been satisfied

If information is missing, the manuscript can be returned for technical correction without being treated as academically rejected.

Separating technical correction from editorial rejection gives authors a clearer understanding of the journal’s decision.

Stage 3: Scope and Quality Screening

After the administrative check, an editor evaluates whether the manuscript should proceed to external review.

Scope Alignment

The editor should ask:

• Does the manuscript address arts, architecture, design or an accepted interdisciplinary area?
• Does it match the journal’s target readership?
• Is the article type appropriate?
• Does the study present a research question or critical purpose?
• Is the contribution potentially significant enough for review?

Basic Academic Quality

The initial screening may also consider:

• Originality
• Methodological clarity
• Engagement with relevant scholarship
• Quality of visual evidence
• Coherence of argument
• Ethical completeness
• Language comprehensibility
• Suitability of references

A manuscript does not need to be publication-ready at this stage, but it must be sufficiently developed for reviewers to evaluate.

Desk Rejection

Desk rejection may be appropriate when a manuscript is clearly outside scope, lacks a research contribution, has serious ethical problems or does not meet minimum scholarly standards.

A desk-rejection letter should be respectful and concise. Where possible, it should identify the principal reason rather than sending a generic message.

Stage 4: Similarity and Integrity Checks

Similarity checking can help identify overlapping text, duplicate publication or insufficient attribution. It should not be used as an automatic decision tool.

A similarity percentage does not prove plagiarism. Legitimate overlap may arise from references, standard methods, institutional names or an author’s earlier preprint. Editors must examine the matched content and context.

Design journals should also consider integrity risks related to:

• Uncredited images
• Manipulated photographs
• Reused diagrams
• Copyrighted artworks
• Fabricated project documentation
• Duplicate creative outputs
• AI-generated images
• Undisclosed text generation
• False authorship
• Inaccurate affiliations
• Fabricated references

The system should allow editors to record concerns and request clarification while restricting access to sensitive notes.

Stage 5: Assigning a Handling Editor

A manuscript should be assigned to an editor with relevant subject knowledge and no conflicting interest.

Possible sections may include:

• Architecture and urban design
• Interior and spatial design
• Fine and visual arts
• Fashion and textile design
• Product and industrial design
• Communication and graphic design
• Digital arts and interactive media
• UX and service design
• Cultural heritage
• Design education

The platform should show each editor’s active workload. This helps avoid concentrating too many manuscripts with one person.

Handling Editor Responsibilities

The handling editor may:

• Confirm suitability for review
• Select reviewers
• Monitor invitations and deadlines
• Evaluate reviewer reports
• Request revisions
• Assess author responses
• Recommend or make a decision
• Escalate ethical questions
• Verify readiness for production

The journal should define whether the handling editor recommends a decision or has authority to issue it.

Stage 6: Selecting Appropriate Reviewers

Reviewer selection is one of the most consequential parts of editorial management.

Match Expertise to the Manuscript

Editors should consider:

• Disciplinary knowledge
• Research methodology
• Regional or cultural context
• Practice-based expertise
• Technical knowledge
• Recent publication history
• Conflicts of interest
• Previous review quality
• Current workload

A visually sophisticated paper should not be assigned solely to someone who understands aesthetics but cannot evaluate its method. Similarly, a methodologist may not be able to judge specialised craft or architectural practice.

Avoid Conflicts of Interest

Potential conflicts may arise when a reviewer:

• Works at the same institution as an author
• Has recently collaborated with an author
• Has a close personal or professional relationship
• Is a direct academic competitor
• Has financial interests related to the work
• Was involved in the project
• Has expressed a strongly prejudicial position

Reviewers should be required to disclose conflicts before accepting.

Author-Suggested Reviewers

Author suggestions may help editors identify specialists, particularly in narrow fields. The journal should independently verify identity, affiliation and suitability.

Editors should not rely exclusively on suggested reviewers.

Maintain a Reviewer Database

A useful reviewer profile may include:

• Full name
• Institutional affiliation
• Verified email
• ORCID
• Subject keywords
• Methodological expertise
• Geographic expertise
• Completed reviews
• Average response time
• Review quality
• Declined invitations
• Conflict notes

The information should be handled in accordance with the journal’s privacy policy.

Stage 7: Reviewer Invitation and Acceptance

A reviewer invitation should contain enough information to make an informed decision without revealing protected information unnecessarily.

It may include:

• Manuscript title
• Abstract
• Article type
• Review model
• Expected deadline
• Confidentiality requirement
• Conflict-of-interest declaration
• Link to accept or decline
• Contact information for the editorial office

The system should record invitation dates, responses and deadlines.

Use a Reviewer Cascade

Editors should not invite only one reviewer at a time if that creates long delays. A planned sequence can include preferred reviewers and suitable alternatives.

Automatic reminders can be sent before and after the deadline, but they should remain professional and not become excessive.

Stage 8: Structured Peer Review

The review form should reflect the journal’s disciplines and manuscript categories.

Core Review Questions

For a research article, reviewers may assess:

• Relevance to journal scope
• Originality
• Clarity of the research question
• Engagement with literature
• Appropriateness of methodology
• Quality of evidence
• Strength of analysis
• Relationship between visuals and argument
• Ethical compliance
• Importance of findings
• Quality of writing and organisation

Questions for Practice-Based Research

Reviewers may also consider:

• Is the creative practice clearly connected to the research question?
• Is the process adequately documented?
• Is critical reflection present?
• Are the criteria for interpreting the creative output explained?
• Does the work produce transferable knowledge or insight?
• Are limitations acknowledged?

Questions for Architectural Case Studies

Relevant criteria may include:

• Clarity of project context
• Evidence supporting performance claims
• Quality of plans and drawings
• Consideration of users and stakeholders
• Environmental and social relevance
• Relationship with previous architectural research
• Distinction between professional description and scholarly analysis

Confidential and Author-Facing Comments

The system should provide separate fields for:

• Comments visible to the author
• Confidential comments to the editor
• Recommendation

Reviewers should not place essential criticism only in confidential comments. Authors need enough information to respond meaningfully.

Peer-Review Transparency and Best Practice

A journal website should state clearly:

• Whether content is peer reviewed
• Who conducts the review
• Which review model is used
• Which identities are concealed
• Whether supplementary materials are reviewed
• Whether reports are published
• Who makes the final decision
• Which content types are exempt
• How conflicts are handled

The Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing state that journals should not guarantee manuscript acceptance and should support review-time claims with evidence. Authors should be informed when substantial delays occur. DOAJ transparency and peer-review principles.

CTA Block 1: Build a Professional Editorial Workflow

Need an online submission and peer-review system for your journal?

We can help with:

• ScholarJMS journal website and submission setup
• Editor and reviewer dashboards
• Custom manuscript workflows
• Automated author and reviewer notifications
• OJS hosting, support and migration
• Journal policy and workflow consultation
• ISSN readiness support
• Crossref DOI workflow planning

WhatsApp: +91 82003 85143
Email: inquiry@ojscloud.com

Stage 9: Editorial Decision-Making

Reviewers provide advice, but editors remain responsible for decisions.

The handling editor should examine:

• Quality and relevance of each report
• Areas of agreement and disagreement
• Whether reviewers assessed the correct manuscript type
• Whether comments are respectful
• Whether recommendations are supported
• Whether additional expertise is required
• Whether ethical questions remain unresolved

Common Decision Categories

A journal may use:

• Accept
• Minor revision
• Major revision
• Resubmit for fresh review
• Reject

The distinction between categories should be defined internally.

Conflicting Reviewer Reports

When reviewers disagree, the editor should not select the report that matches a preferred outcome without analysis.

The editor may:

• Compare the reasoning behind each recommendation
• Seek clarification
• Assess the manuscript independently
• Invite a third reviewer
• Consult a specialist editor
• Request targeted revision

The decision letter should synthesise required changes rather than forwarding contradictory instructions without guidance.

Stage 10: Revision and Author Response

The system should create a separate revision round while preserving earlier files and reviews.

Authors should normally upload:

• Revised manuscript
• Clean manuscript
• Tracked-change version if required
• Point-by-point response
• Revised figures
• Updated supplementary files
• New permissions where applicable

Point-by-Point Response

Authors should quote or identify each reviewer comment, explain the change made and provide the relevant manuscript location. If they disagree, they should respond respectfully with evidence.

Minor and Major Revisions

Minor revision usually concerns limited corrections that do not change the study’s central method or conclusions.

Major revision may require substantial reanalysis, additional evidence, restructuring or significant clarification. It should not be used when the editor has already decided that the manuscript is fundamentally unsuitable.

Version Control

Every revision should carry a clear round number and timestamp. Reviewers should receive the correct version, previous comments and author response.

Stage 11: Final Acceptance

Acceptance should occur only after the academic content, ethical declarations, permissions and required files are complete.

Before final acceptance, verify:

• Final title
• Author names and order
• Affiliations
• Corresponding-author details
• ORCID identifiers
• Abstract and keywords
• Funding statement
• Conflict declaration
• Ethics statement
• AI disclosure
• Figure and table captions
• Image permissions
• Supplementary materials
• Reference completeness

The system should record the final decision date and identify who approved it.

Stage 12: Copyediting and Production

Acceptance marks the beginning of production, not the end of the workflow.

Copyediting

Copyediting may address:

• Grammar and clarity
• House style
• References
• Terminology
• Heading hierarchy
• Captions
• Tables
• Author affiliations
• Funding information
• Ethical statements
• Internal consistency

Editors should avoid changing an author’s academic meaning without consultation.

Design-Journal Production Requirements

Arts and design journals need careful visual production. The team should check:

• Image resolution
• Colour consistency
• Line quality in drawings
• Legibility of labels
• Scale and north arrows where relevant
• Caption placement
• Artwork credits
• Page balance
• PDF accessibility
• File size
• Screen and print readability

The published article should look professional without turning layout into decoration that competes with scholarly content.

Author Proofing

Authors should receive a proof and a deadline for corrections. Proofing is intended to identify production errors, not to rewrite the accepted manuscript.

All corrections should be recorded and incorporated into the final file.

Stage 13: Metadata and Crossref DOI Workflow

Metadata should be verified as carefully as the PDF. Incorrect author names, titles or publication dates may spread across databases and citation systems.

Crossref recommends that journal records maintain consistent titles and ISSNs and that article deposits include accurate titles, contributors, affiliations, abstracts, funding, licensing information, relationships and references. Crossref guidance for journals and articles.

Essential Article Metadata

Capture:

• Journal title
• ISSN
• Article title
• Author names
• ORCID identifiers
• Affiliations
• Abstract
• Keywords
• Article type
• Publication date
• Volume and issue
• Page range or article number
• DOI
• Landing-page URL
• References
• Licence
• Funding information
• Correction or retraction relationships

DOI Registration Is a Workflow

A DOI-format string does not become functional merely because it appears on a PDF. It must be registered through an authorised Crossref membership or sponsorship workflow and linked to maintained metadata.

GetDOI can assist journals with Crossref DOI setup, sponsorship routes, metadata preparation and DOI workflow guidance.

DOI Landing Pages

Every DOI should resolve to a stable article page containing bibliographic information and full-text access information. If the journal domain or platform changes, the DOI destination should be updated promptly.

Stage 14: Online Publication and Issue Management

Once the article is complete, the platform should publish it within the correct volume, issue or continuous-publication structure.

Before release, test:

• DOI resolution
• Article URL
• PDF download
• Author names
• Citation format
• Mobile layout
• Abstract and keywords
• Figures and supplements
• Copyright and licence
• Publication date
• Issue table of contents
• Internal links

A journal should not quietly replace the final file after publication. Material changes may require a formal correction and a transparent publication record.

Stage 15: Post-Publication Maintenance

Editorial responsibility continues after an article is released.

The workflow should support:

• Corrections
• Retractions
• Expressions of concern
• Metadata updates
• DOI URL updates
• Reader correspondence
• Supplementary-file corrections
• Post-publication discussion
• Preservation and backups

Crossref supports registering relationships for updates, corrections, withdrawals and retractions. Persistent identifiers and metadata should reflect the current status of the scholarly record.

Choosing a Peer-Review Model

Single-Anonymised Review

Reviewers know the author’s identity, but authors do not know reviewer identities. This may help reviewers assess context, although awareness of author identity may introduce bias.

Double-Anonymised Review

Author and reviewer identities are concealed from one another. This can reduce some identity-related influence, but perfect anonymity may be difficult in specialist fields.

Open Peer Review

Author and reviewer identities may be disclosed, and reports may be published. This can increase accountability but may affect reviewer willingness, especially for early-career researchers.

Transparent Peer Review

Review reports, author responses and editorial decisions may be made available while reviewer identity can remain optional or protected. This creates a visible record of scholarly evaluation.

Scholar9 can support journals exploring transparent peer review and a wider research-trust ecosystem.

The journal should select a model that suits its community and apply it consistently.

ScholarJMS for Integrated Journal Management

ScholarJMS provides a combined journal website, manuscript-submission system and editorial workflow environment.

It can support:

• Branded journal websites
• Author accounts
• Structured submission
• Editorial screening
• Editor assignment
• Reviewer management
• Revision rounds
• Decision tracking
• Article and issue publication
• Metadata presentation
• Role-based dashboards
• Email notifications
• Online archives

For institutions currently managing manuscripts through email, an integrated system can create clearer responsibility, better records and a more professional author experience.

OJS Hosting, Support and Migration

Some journals prefer Open Journal Systems or already possess a substantial OJS archive. OJSCloud can assist with:

• OJS hosting
• Installation and configuration
• Upgrades
• Technical support
• Theme and website work
• Editorial workflow configuration
• Journal-launch support
• ISSN consulting
• Migration planning
• Publishing consultation

Migrating From OJS to ScholarJMS

A proper migration should consider:

• Volumes and issues
• Articles and PDFs
• Author metadata
• Abstracts and keywords
• Publication dates
• DOI information
• Article URLs
• Supplementary files
• Editorial policies
• User records where appropriate
• Redirects
• Search visibility

The migration should be planned around continuity of the journal record. DOI destinations must remain functional.

CTA Block 2: Upgrade an Existing Journal Workflow

Is your journal still relying on email, spreadsheets or an outdated platform?

Our journal publishing support covers:

• OJS to ScholarJMS migration
• New ScholarJMS workflow setup
• OJS hosting, upgrades and technical support
• Archive and metadata migration
• Editorial policy development
• ISSN consulting
• Crossref DOI support
• Peer-review workflow improvement

WhatsApp: +91 82003 85143
Email: inquiry@ojscloud.com

Editorial Workflow Performance Indicators

A journal should review its workflow using evidence.

Useful indicators include:

• Time from submission to screening
• Time to assign an editor
• Reviewer invitation acceptance rate
• Time to secure reviewers
• Average review duration
• Revision turnaround
• Time from acceptance to publication
• Number of overdue manuscripts
• Desk-rejection rate
• Withdrawal rate
• Reviewer completion rate
• Correction rate
• Author queries and complaints

Metrics should improve processes, not pressure editors or reviewers into superficial decisions.

Common Workflow Mistakes

Opening Submissions Before Policies Are Ready

Authors need clear information about scope, peer review, ethics, fees and licensing before they submit.

Using One Review Form for Every Article Type

A visual essay, architectural case study and empirical UX paper may require different evaluation questions.

Inviting Reviewers Without Verifying Identity

Editors should verify affiliations and avoid suspicious or author-controlled email addresses.

Promising Unrealistically Fast Publication

Strong peer review takes time. Journals should communicate realistic estimates without guaranteeing acceptance.

Allowing Editorial Roles to Remain Unclear

Every manuscript should have an identifiable responsible editor and an authorised final decision-maker.

Sending Reviewers the Wrong Files

Anonymised review requires checks to remove author information from manuscripts, file names, document properties and supplementary materials.

Accepting Before Permissions Are Complete

Copyright and image-permission problems should be resolved before acceptance, not after layout.

Treating DOI Registration as the Last-Minute Addition

DOI patterns, metadata and landing pages should be planned before publication.

Migrating Only PDFs

A journal archive depends on structured metadata as well as files. Losing metadata damages discoverability and citation accuracy.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is an online manuscript submission system?

It is a platform through which authors submit manuscripts and editors manage screening, reviewer assignment, revisions, decisions, production and publication records.

Why should a design journal avoid email-only submission?

Email does not provide reliable status tracking, role management, version control or a complete institutional record. It increases the risk of lost files, missed deadlines and inconsistent communication.

What is the best peer-review model for a design journal?

There is no single model for every journal. Double-anonymised review can reduce some identity-related influence, while transparent or open approaches can increase accountability. The journal should choose a suitable model and describe it clearly.

Can visual essays undergo peer review?

Yes. A journal should develop criteria appropriate to visual scholarship, including critical purpose, context, methodology, visual coherence, originality and contribution to knowledge.

How should architectural drawings be submitted?

The journal should specify file format, resolution, dimensions, labels, scale, captions, credits and anonymisation requirements. Final production files may differ from review files.

How many reviewers should evaluate a manuscript?

Many journals seek two independent reports, but the appropriate number depends on policy, article type and expertise required. The journal should prioritise qualified and independent evaluation.

Who makes the final publication decision?

Reviewers provide recommendations. The authorised editor or Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision according to the journal’s policy.

Can AI be used during peer review?

Editors and reviewers should follow the journal’s AI and confidentiality policy. Uploading an unpublished manuscript to an external AI service may expose confidential content. Human editors and reviewers remain accountable.

How does ScholarJMS improve editorial workflow?

ScholarJMS centralises submission, screening, editor assignment, reviewer management, revision tracking, decisions, publication and article presentation within one journal environment.

Can an OJS journal migrate to ScholarJMS?

Yes. A planned migration can transfer issues, articles, metadata, author information, DOI data and policy content while protecting link continuity and archive integrity.

Why is metadata important after acceptance?

Metadata enables accurate citation, search visibility, DOI registration, author identification and interoperability with scholarly systems. Errors can spread beyond the journal website.

How can a journal obtain Crossref DOI support?

A journal can work through direct Crossref membership or an appropriate sponsorship arrangement. GetDOI can assist with DOI setup, sponsorship pathways, metadata and workflow guidance.

Does an editorial platform guarantee journal indexing?

No. A professional platform improves technical readiness and transparency, but independent databases make their own decisions based on publishing history, quality, policies and other criteria.

Conclusion

An efficient editorial workflow creates a reliable path between manuscript submission and scholarly publication. It gives authors clear instructions, enables editors to manage responsibility, helps reviewers provide structured assessments and preserves the history behind each decision.

For arts, architecture and design journals, the system must also accommodate visual material, creative research, architectural documentation, cultural permissions and interdisciplinary evaluation. These requirements make structured online management particularly valuable.

A strong workflow should connect submission, screening, peer review, revision, production, metadata, DOI registration and post-publication maintenance. Each stage should have a defined owner, status and record.

The International Journal of Arts Architecture & Design demonstrates the value of a professional digital environment for interdisciplinary creative scholarship. Institutions planning a similar journal should treat technology as part of a wider publishing system that includes academic governance, ethical policies and credible peer review.

ScholarJMS can provide an integrated journal website, online submission and editorial workflow. OJSCloud can support OJS hosting, migration, journal setup and ISSN readiness. GetDOI can assist with Crossref DOI planning and metadata workflows. Scholar9 can support transparent peer review and research trust.

Need help building or improving your journal workflow?

Contact us for ScholarJMS setup, OJS migration, ISSN consulting, Crossref DOI support or complete journal-launch guidance.

WhatsApp: +91 82003 85143
Email: inquiry@ojscloud.com