Editorial workflows are the backbone of scholarly publishing. By automating them, publishers can streamline operations, reduce costs, and stay aligned with the evolving standards of an increasingly digital world. Just as Open Access makes research freely available anywhere, anytime, automated workflows ensure that the editorial process remains efficient and sustainable for the long-term.
In this article, we’ll discuss why automation can significantly improve your editorial workflow and share practical strategies for how it can be best implemented.
Editorial workflows explained
Editorial workflows are systematic processes which guide a manuscript from submission to publication. They are essential in scholarly communication as they ensure that research is published on time and to a high standard. The workflow typically involves four stages, which include:
- Submission
- Peer review
- Copyediting
- Production
This structured approach helps the manuscript meet the journal’s publication standards. It also protects the publisher’s reputation as high-quality work will have a greater academic impact. Providing transparency throughout this process builds trust with researchers, making them more likely to publish with you again.
Manual vs automated workflows
Manual workflows refer to processes that require human supervision or intervention to complete production. Administrative tasks can be particularly time-consuming, giving editors less time to focus on the quality of the manuscript.
For example, when a manuscript is submitted manually, the editor must log this into a complex digital filing system. But if the author were to upload the submission through an online portal, the software can automatically assign it to the correct location. It can also send out automated confirmation emails to researchers, limiting the number of requests editors receive daily.
Automated software also allows editors to match reviewers based on curated databases rather than searching for them manually. Reviewer requests can be sent digitally, with automated reminders and deadlines set by the system. Comments will appear on the manuscript in real-time, allowing for instant revisions and feedback.
While small companies often handle tracking, emailing, and other tasks on a case-by-case basis manually, automation might be necessary as your company grows. Copyediting software automatically highlights grammar, style, and formatting issues, while proofs can be generated instantly as PDFs and shared via online platforms.
Why are people resistant to change?
As technology continues to evolve, it is easy to understand why people are resistant to change in the workplace. Some people can become comfortable with established routines, while others have fears around job security. There is a common misconception that automating processes removes the need for human judgment, but this is not the case.
Thoughtful oversight and active engagement ensure that digital efficiency is balanced with authenticity. Human judgment remains essential in identifying opportunities for improvement and guiding innovation. It is important to address concerns among editorial board members and consider adjusting management for those hesitant to adopt new tools.
People require clear communication as to why change is necessary, and sometimes it can be beneficial to introduce it gradually. Digitisation is not designed to remove human involvement, but to support pre-existing processes. Editors will retain autonomy over the content they produce and remain responsible for its overall creative direction.
JAMS customer success story
To understand how real editorial teams are streamlining their workflows, we spoke to Editor-in-Chief Ismail Badran, who recently transitioned from a manual, email‑driven process to a fully automated system.
Before using JAMS, his team relied heavily on email processes to move manuscripts from acceptance to production. JAMS now automates this, ensuring a consistent and efficient workflow.
As Badran explained, “Previously, we had to check plagiarism manually using external websites, which was time‑consuming. With JAMS, plagiarism checking is automatic and fast through the integrated iThenticate tool.”
One of the biggest improvements highlighted was the ability to manage a high volume of manuscripts and people simultaneously.
“The system allows us to manage roles, track progress, and supervise the entire editorial process. Reviewer search is also very helpful, especially through Scilit, which makes finding suitable reviewers much faster and easier.”
For this team, JAMS has become an essential part of their publishing operations by reducing manual work, improving communication, and helping them maintain high editorial standards as they grow.
Check out JAMS success stories
How you can support editors by automating workflows
By providing in-house training, editors will learn how to optimise the new systems and use them most effectively. It provides the opportunity to ask questions and receive feedback, supporting a smoother overall transition. As a publisher, you should set clear goals amongst team members to achieve the best results.
Using new systems will likely spark some debate. Providing consistent support will not only improve efficiency but also create a positive working environment where everyone feels valued. This is particularly important if people are resistant towards the software, as building a positive user experience will increase morale around implementing it into the workflow.
Monitoring feedback can be an effective way to boost productivity, as it will highlight areas for improvement and provide insight into how the team is functioning. Qualitative data will provide more personal insights, whilst quantitative methods will demonstrate numeric results. You can monitor this regularly, using a combination of the two approaches to provide a well-rounded picture of your team’s development.