OJS Editorial and Publishing Process

The Review Stage: Assigning Reviewers and Making Editorial Decisions

The Review Stage is the second phase of the editorial workflow in Open Journal Systems (OJS) (PKP Document 3.5). At this stage, submissions undergo peer review to assess their scientific quality, methodological rigor, originality, and relevance to the journal’s scope. Editors initiate this stage by sending submissions for review and managing the evaluation process until an editorial decision is reached.

The primary roles involved in this stage are Editors, Reviewers, and Authors.

Preparing Files for Review

OJS supports multiple peer-review models, including double-blind, single-blind, and open review. While the system provides technical support for anonymity, Editors are responsible for ensuring that all review files comply with the journal’s review policy.

Available review types include:

  • Anonymous Reviewer / Anonymous Author (Double-Blind Review)

  • Anonymous Reviewer / Disclosed Author (Single-Blind Review)

  • Open Review

For anonymous review types, Editors must ensure that all identifying information—such as author names, affiliations, acknowledgments, and document metadata—has been removed from the files.

Uploading Anonymized Review Files

Once files have been anonymized, Editors upload them to the Files for Review section. Editors can select files from earlier workflow stages or upload new versions specifically prepared for reviewers. File names can be edited to ensure clarity and consistency throughout the review process.

Assigning Reviewers

When a submission enters the Review stage, Editors assign reviewers based on expertise, availability, and review history. The system provides reviewer profiles, including affiliation, reviewing interests, active assignments, and previous performance.

Editors may:

  • Select existing reviewers

  • Enroll registered users as reviewers

  • Create new reviewer accounts when needed

For each reviewer assignment, Editors define:

  • Response due date (accept/decline invitation)

  • Review due date

  • Files to be reviewed

  • Review type

  • Optional review forms

Once confirmed, OJS sends an automated invitation email to the reviewer.

Managing Reviewers and Review Progress

The Reviewers panel allows Editors to monitor the status of each review, including acceptance, progress, submission, or delay. Editors may send reminders, edit deadlines, cancel assignments, or reinstate reviewers if necessary.

All reviewer activity—including completed, declined, or cancelled reviews—is recorded in reviewer statistics to support long-term editorial management.

Tracking Review Status via Dashboard

Editors can track review progress using Dashboard views such as:

  • All in peer review

  • Needs reviewers

  • Awaiting reviews

  • Reviews submitted

Visual indicators provide real-time information on deadlines, overdue tasks, and completed reviews.

Responding to Submitted Reviews

Once a review is submitted, Editors can read reviewer comments, access attached files, and communicate with reviewers through internal discussions. Reviews must be confirmed by an Editor before proceeding to an editorial decision.

Editors may also acknowledge reviewer contributions using automated thank-you messages.

Making an Editorial Decision

Based on reviewer recommendations, Editors may choose one of the following actions:

  • Request Revisions

  • Accept Submission

  • Create a New Review Round

  • Decline Submission

All decisions are recorded in the system and communicated to authors using standardized or customized email templates.

Handling Revisions and Additional Review Rounds

If revisions are requested, Authors submit revised manuscripts through OJS. Editors may:

  • Evaluate revisions directly

  • Open a new review round

  • Reassign previous or new reviewers

Multiple review rounds can be conducted until a final decision is reached.

Finalizing the Review Stage

When a submission is accepted, it moves to the Copyediting Stage. Declined submissions are archived in the Declined dashboard and remain accessible to Editors for record-keeping and potential reconsideration.

This structured review workflow ensures transparency, consistency, and academic integrity in the editorial process, aligning journal operations with international publishing standards and PKP best practices.