For Editors: A clearer way to navigate peer review

We're introducing a new manuscript-centered review experience that brings reviewer feedback, discussions, and revisions together in a shared manuscript workspace.

Rather than switching between multiple files, reports, and discussion threads, you'll be able to review comments in context, collaborate through manuscript-linked discussions, and follow the progress of the review more easily.

The rigor of peer review, editorial standards, and publication criteria remain the same. The manuscript workspace simply provides a clearer way to navigate the process.

Traditional peer review often means switching between multiple documents, reviewer reports, and response files.

The manuscript workspace brings everything together in one place, helping you:

• understand feedback in context

• keep discussions linked to the relevant text

• follow revisions more easily

• collaborate more effectively with reviewers and editors

• focus on improving your research

As part of our wider publishing platform rebuild, the manuscript workspace is being introduced in phases so we can continue improving it through user feedback.

The platform introduces a manuscript-focused review environment where comments, discussions, and revisions stay connected to the text being reviewed.

With manuscript-centric peer review, you can:

• review manuscript discussions in context

• monitor reviewer and researcher interactions

• follow discussions linked to specific sections of text

• assess responses to reviewer comments more easily

• oversee review activity

By keeping feedback connected to the manuscript, it's easier to evaluate whether reviewer concerns have been addressed and helps maintain a clear record of the review process.

What stays the same?

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

You can continue to:

• oversee the peer review process

• evaluate reviewer recommendations

• assess revisions and researcher responses

• support constructive peer review

• make editorial recommendations and decisions according to journal policies

• uphold ethical and research integrity standards

During rollout, you will encounter both existing editorial systems and the new platform. Depending on the journal, manuscript, or stage of review, some activities may take place in different environments while improvements continue to be introduced.

Regardless of where review activities take place, editorial responsibilities, decision-making processes, and publication criteria remain the same.

The new system changes how review information is presented and managed, 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.

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.

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.

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.