For Editors: Manuscript-Centric Peer Review
A clearer way to manage peer review
Manuscript-Centric Peer Review (MCPR) is a new review platform designed to make peer review clearer, more collaborative, and easier to manage.
Rather than working across multiple files, reports, and discussion threads, editors can oversee peer review through a shared manuscript workspace where feedback, discussions, and revisions remain connected to the manuscript.
The peer review process, editorial responsibilities, and publication criteria remain the same. MCPR simply provides a more intuitive way to manage review, monitor progress, and support constructive scientific dialogue.
Why we’re introducing the platform
Effective peer review depends on clear communication, constructive feedback, and efficient collaboration between researchers, reviewers, and editors.
MCPR has been designed to:
make peer review easier to manage
reduce the need to switch between files, tabs, and systems
keep feedback connected to the relevant manuscript text
support clearer communication between participants
provide greater visibility into review discussions
create a more modern editorial environment
The goal is to reduce friction throughout the review process while maintaining the rigor and quality standards expected by the research community.
What's different?
MCPR introduces a manuscript-focused review environment where comments, discussions, and revisions stay connected to the text being reviewed.
With MCPR, editors 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 within MCPR
By keeping feedback connected to the manuscript, MCPR makes it 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.
Editors will continue to:
oversee the peer review process
evaluate reviewer recommendations
assess revisions and author responses
support constructive peer review
make editorial recommendations and decisions according to journal policies
uphold ethical and research integrity standards
During rollout, you may encounter both existing editorial systems and MCPR. 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.
MCPR changes how review information is presented and managed, not how editorial decisions are made.
A note about the pilot
MCPR is currently being introduced in phases and continues to evolve based on feedback from editors, reviewers, and researchers.
As improvements are rolled out, you may occasionally encounter features that behave unexpectedly or information that appears differently between MCPR and other editorial systems.
If something does not appear as expected, contact your Editorial Office or product support contact for guidance.
The Editor journey
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
Editors play an important role in ensuring review remains constructive, focused, and productive.
MCPR 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, editors 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 the Editorial Office for support.
4. Facilitate collaborative review
MCPR is designed to support collaborative review by bringing discussions into a shared environment.
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, editors can make recommendations or decisions according to journal workflows and editorial policies.
MCPR helps bring reviewer feedback, researcher responses, and manuscript revisions together in one place, making it easier to evaluate the overall progress of the manuscript.
Tips for editors using MCPR
Focus on the quality of the discussion
Clear, constructive discussions help reviewers and researchers resolve issues more effectively and improve the quality of the final manuscript.
Encourage specific reviewer feedback
Detailed comments linked to the manuscript make it easier for researchers to respond and for editors to assess whether concerns have been addressed.
Support transparency
Keeping discussions connected to specific sections of the manuscript helps create a clear review record for all participants.
Maintain editorial oversight
While the platform changes how review information is presented, editorial judgment remains central to the decision-making process.
Help improve MCPR
MCPR will continue to evolve as we learn from editors, reviewers, and researchers. Feedback gathered during rollout helps shape future improvements and ensures the platform supports the needs of the research community.
Share your feedback
Have you recently managed peer review using MCPR? We'd love to hear about your experience.
Complete our short survey to share your feedback and help us improve the platform for editors across the research community.
Frequently asked questions
What is manuscript-centric peer review?
Manuscript-Centric Peer Review (MCPR) is a review platform that allows editors, reviewers, and researchers to work directly on the manuscript through inline annotations and connected discussions.
Does the platform change the peer review process?
No. MCPR changes how review information is reviewed, discussed, and managed, but editorial responsibilities, publication criteria, and decision-making processes remain the same.
How is the platform different from traditional review systems?
MCPR keeps manuscript content, feedback, discussions, and revisions together in a shared workspace, helping editors follow the review process more easily.
Can editors see reviewer and researcher discussions?
MCPR is designed to provide visibility into manuscript-linked discussions and review activity throughout the peer review process, subject to journal workflows and permissions.
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.
How can I provide feedback on platform?
You can share your experience through the MCPR feedback survey. Feedback from editors helps guide future platform improvements and development.
What if I need help using the platform?
If you have questions about the review process or encounter technical issues, contact your Editorial Office or support team for assistance.
Learn more about the review process and share your feedback to help improve MCPR for editors across the research community.