For Chief Editors: A clearer way to navigate peer review

Chief Editors play an important role in maintaining quality, consistency, and trust across their journals and communities.

We're introducing a new manuscript-centered review experience, powered by Manuscript-Centric Peer Review, to make peer review clearer, more collaborative, and easier to navigate for researchers, reviewers, and editors.

By bringing discussions directly onto the manuscript through inline annotations and a shared workspace, the new review experience helps participants engage with feedback in context and collaborate more effectively throughout peer review.

The peer review process, editorial standards, and publication criteria remain unchanged. The manuscript workspace is a usability improvement designed to support high-quality, constructive peer review while maintaining the rigor and governance of the existing editorial process.

Part of a wider rebuild

The manuscript workspace is one of the first improvements being introduced as part of an ongoing effort to improve publishing workflows for researchers, reviewers, and editors.

Rather than introducing one large change all at once, improvements are being delivered in stages. This allows us to learn from real user experiences, make iterative improvements, and continue strengthening peer review throughout the rollout.

The manuscript workspace is being introduced in phases, so you may encounter a combination of the new workspace and existing editorial workflows.

During the pilot:

• some editorial activities will continue in existing workflows

• users may move between different interfaces depending on the stage of review

• functionality will continue to evolve as additional capabilities are introduced

Guidance within the workspace will direct users to the appropriate workflow where required.

If editors, reviewers, or researchers encounter technical issues or unexpected behaviour, encourage them to contact their journal's editorial office. This helps ensure issues are resolved quickly while supporting ongoing improvements to the platform.

Peer review is most effective when feedback is clear, communication is constructive, and participants can focus on the science.

The manuscript workspace has been designed to:

• make peer review easier to navigate

• reduce the need to switch between files, reports, and discussion threads

• keep feedback connected to the relevant manuscript text

• support clearer communication between researchers, reviewers, and editors

• create a more collaborative review environment

The goal is to improve the peer review experience while preserving the editorial standards and oversight that underpin research quality.

The manuscript workspace keeps comments, discussions, and revisions connected to the text being reviewed.

Participants can:

• review and discuss manuscripts within a shared workspace

• add feedback through inline annotations

• engage in discussions linked directly to specific passages

• continue to access manuscript files, including downloadable PDFs, where needed

• collaborate more effectively throughout the review process

By keeping feedback connected to the manuscript, the workspace is designed to improve visibility of review discussions and feedback, making it easier to follow the progress of peer review.

What stays the same?

While the workspace looks different, the foundations of peer review remain unchanged.

The review process will continue to rely on:

• expert reviewer assessment

• editorial oversight and decision-making

• established ethical and research integrity standards

• constructive peer review and revision

• independent editorial judgment

• quality-focused publication decisions

The manuscript workspace changes how participants interact with peer review, not how editorial decisions are made.

If something does not appear as expected, contact your editorial office for guidance.

1. Monitor the review process

Once a manuscript enters review, you can oversee activity through the manuscript workspace.

From there, you can:

• review reviewer comments and recommendations

• follow discussions linked to specific sections of the manuscript

• monitor researcher responses

• track review progress

Because comments remain connected to the manuscript, it is easier to understand the context of reviewer concerns and researcher responses.

2. Support constructive review

You play an important role in ensuring review remains constructive, focused, and productive.

The platform is designed to help editors:

• identify unresolved concerns

• encourage constructive dialogue

• support clarification where needed

• help keep the review process moving forward

Detailed reviewer comments and manuscript-linked discussions provide greater visibility into how feedback is being addressed.

3. Evaluate revisions and responses

As researchers respond to reviewer feedback and revise their manuscript, you can review progress within the manuscript workspace.

You may need to:

• assess whether reviewer concerns have been addressed

• review researcher responses

• identify areas requiring further clarification

• determine whether additional review is required

If responses, comments, or review actions do not appear as expected, contact your editorial office for support.

4. Facilitate collaborative review

Researchers, reviewers, and editors can contribute to manuscript-linked discussions throughout the review process, helping to:

• clarify feedback

• resolve questions more efficiently

• maintain transparency

• support constructive scientific dialogue

5. Move toward a decision

Once reviewer concerns have been addressed and the review process is complete, you can make recommendations or decisions according to journal workflows and editorial policies.

While we integrate the new and existing platforms, you'll switch back to the existing workspace to make your decision. This can be done by clicking on the button in the Overview section.

Have you recently managed peer review using the new platform? Complete our short survey to share your feedback and help us improve the platform for editors across the research community.

Does the platform change the peer review process?

No. While there are changes to how review information is reviewed, discussed, and managed, your editorial responsibilities, publication criteria, and decision-making processes remain the same.

Will Chief Editors need to learn a new editorial process?

No. Editorial responsibilities, governance, and decision-making remain the same. The manuscript workspace introduces a new way of viewing and managing peer review while maintaining existing editorial standards.

How is the platform different from traditional review systems?

The platform keeps manuscript content, feedback, discussions, and revisions together in a shared workspace, helping you to follow the review process more easily.

Can users still download manuscript files and PDFs?

Yes. Existing options to access manuscript files, including downloadable PDFs where available, remain available during the pilot.

When do researchers see Reviewer comments?

Reviewer comments and discussions become visible at the appropriate stage of the review process. The platform manages this automatically according to the journal workflow, so you do not need to manually control comment visibility.

Does it change editorial responsibilities?

No. Editors continue to oversee peer review, evaluate reviewer recommendations, assess revisions, and make editorial decisions according to journal policies.

Where do I make editorial decisions?

Your Editorial decisions continue to be made in the existing platform during the pilot.

How can I provide feedback on platform?

You can share your experience through the feedback survey. Feedback from editors helps guide future platform improvements and development.

Where do I manage reviewer invitations?

During the pilot, Reviewer invitations, assignments, and Reviewer management continue to take place in the existing editorial platform. The platform supports the review process once Reviewers have been assigned.

How does the manuscript workspace support review quality?

By connecting feedback directly to the manuscript and providing a shared space for discussion, the workspace helps improve clarity, communication, and collaboration throughout peer review.

How can I support my editorial community?

Encourage researchers, reviewers, and editors to follow the guidance provided within the manuscript workspace, report technical issues to their journal's editorial office, and share feedback to help improve future releases.

What if I need help using the platform?

If you have questions about the review process or encounter technical issues, contact your editorial office for assistance.