A clearer route from submission to publication.

Authors need clear instructions, required files and a way to track the submission they have made. The journal should define metadata, declarations and document formats before implementation. A consistent intake process reduces avoidable requests for missing information later in the editorial cycle.

Initial screening, reviewer assignment and publication decisions may belong to different people. The workflow should specify who can access a manuscript at each stage and how responsibility changes when an editor is unavailable. Administrative access must not blur the journal’s academic decision-making process.

Single-anonymous, double-anonymous and open review have different information boundaries. The system’s roles, notifications and files need to reflect the model selected by the journal. Removing an author name from one screen is insufficient if identifying information remains in a downloadable document.

A revised manuscript needs a clear relationship to previous files, reviewer comments and editorial decisions. Agree which versions remain accessible and how authors respond to requested changes. This provides a more useful history than distributing different copies across email threads.

Issues, article metadata, archives and public access requirements should be included in the publishing scope. DOI registration, plagiarism checking and external indexing depend on separate services and eligibility. Software can support an agreed process, but cannot guarantee acceptance by an indexing organisation.