OJS 3.4 Editorial Workflow: Configuration & Practice

Note

Format: Self-paced or instructor-led tutorial Length: 20–30 minutes Audience: Journal editors and section editors Prerequisites: An editor-level (or Journal Manager) account on an OJS 3.4 journal

Learning Objectives

By the end of this tutorial, you will be able to:

  • Explain the four editorial stages that make up every OJS 3.4 submission’s lifecycle.

  • Configure the journal’s Workflow Settings (Submission, Review, Publisher Library, and Emails tabs) to match your journal’s editorial policies.

  • Move a submission through the workflow — from initial intake to a published galley — and know which editorial decision to make at each stage.

Part 1 — The Four Editorial Stages at a Glance

Every submission in OJS 3.4 moves through up to four editorial stages, plus a final Publication tab used for scheduling:

  1. Submission — Intake and triage. The editor decides whether a manuscript is appropriate for review.

  2. Review — Peer review and author revisions.

  3. Copyediting — Language, style, and clarity edits after a submission passes review.

  4. Production — Galleys (PDF, HTML, ePub, etc.) are prepared for publication.

A submission does not have to pass through every stage in order — an editor can skip Review entirely, send a submission backward, or decline it at almost any point. Each stage has its own Participants panel (for assigning people) and a Discussions panel (for private, stage-scoped conversation with authors, reviewers, or fellow editors).

Part 2 — Configuring the Editorial Workflow

Before working submissions, a Journal Manager (or an editor with settings access) should configure Settings → Workflow, which has four tabs.

2.1 Submission Tab

Controls what happens before and during the moment an author submits:

  • Disable Submissions — turn off new submissions journal-wide, or per section via Journal Sections.

  • Metadata — enable metadata fields (e.g., keywords, subjects, supporting agencies) and choose whether authors fill them in or only editors can.

  • Components — define file types authors can upload (manuscript, figure, data set, etc.); mark components as supplementary or dependent.

  • Checklist — a list of requirements (formatting, citation style, blinding, etc.) authors must confirm before submitting.

  • Author Guidelines — instructions shown to authors during submission.

2.2 Review Tab

Controls peer review policy:

  • Setup — choose the default review mode (open, blind, double-blind); this can be overridden per submission. Enabling one-click reviewer access lets invited reviewers open the review page directly from their email without logging in (editors lose the ability to edit/CC that invitation email when this is on).

  • Reviewer Guidance — criteria and instructions shown to reviewers for judging suitability.

  • Review Forms — optional structured forms editors can assign so reviewers answer specific questions rather than free text only.

2.3 Publisher Library

A shared file repository for boilerplate documents — author contracts, release forms, style guides — that editors can quickly attach to a submission’s library during any stage.

2.4 Emails

OJS sends automated emails at nearly every workflow transition (acknowledgement, review invite, decision letters, etc.). This tab lets you:

  • Edit the signature appended to outgoing mail.

  • Edit the default subject/body of any template.

  • Filter templates by sender, recipient, workflow stage, or enabled status.

Tip

Configure these four tabs before your first live submission arrives — Author Guidelines, the Checklist, and Reviewer Guidance in particular shape what authors and reviewers see from their very first interaction with the journal.

Part 3 — Working a Submission Through the Editorial Process

This is the day-to-day workflow an editor follows once submissions start arriving.

3.1 Stage 1 — Submission

A new submission lands here automatically. The editor reviews the files and decides how to proceed, optionally assigning a section editor (Participants panel) or opening a Pre-Review Discussion with the author first.

Editorial actions available:

Action

What it does

Send to Review

Moves the submission into the Review stage for peer review.

Send to Copyediting

Skips peer review entirely and sends the submission straight to Copyediting.

Decline Submission

Removes the submission from the active workflow and archives it.

3.2 Stage 2 — Review

Peer review happens in rounds, starting at Round 1. Each round has its own panels:

  • Review Files — the files reviewers can see (unless restricted per reviewer).

  • Reviewers — assign reviewers, set due dates, and track recommendations; confirm a review once it’s complete.

  • Revisions — author-uploaded revised files, ready to move forward once approved.

  • Review Discussions — private conversation among editors, sub-editors, and reviewers (authors cannot join or message reviewers directly). Discussions carry over across rounds.

Editorial decisions at the end of a round:

Decision

What it does

Request Revisions

Minor revisions — the editor can approve them without a new review round.

Resubmit for Review

Major revisions — a new review round is created once the author resubmits.

Send to Copyediting

The submission has passed review and moves forward.

Decline Submission

The submission did not pass review; it is archived.

Every decision automatically emails the author using the templates configured in Emails (Part 2.4).

3.3 Stage 3 — Copyediting

A copyeditor (assigned via Participants) aligns the writing with house style, checks grammar and clarity, and prepares the text for layout. If you have no dedicated copyeditor, use this stage yourself to fact-check and clean up the manuscript.

  • Draft Files — files selected by the editor for copyediting (typically the approved review revisions).

  • Copyediting Discussions — clarify points with the author or coordinate with the copyeditor.

  • Copyedited — the finished files, uploaded by the copyeditor (or editor) and ready to move on.

Editorial action: Send to Production — forwards the submission (and any files in Copyedited) to the Production stage. This is the only decision available at this stage; to decline this late, an editor must first send the submission back to an earlier stage.

3.4 Stage 4 — Production

Production assistants (assigned via Participants) turn the copyedited files into publication galleys — separate formats such as PDF, HTML, or ePub.

  • Production Ready Files — the finished copyedited files used to generate galleys.

  • Production Discussions — coordination between editors and production assistants.

Once galleys are ready, the editor uses Schedule for Publication to move the submission from the Workflow panel into the Publication tab.

3.5 The Publication Tab

The final step before (and after) an article goes live:

  • Review and edit the article’s metadata.

  • Upload the galley file(s).

  • Set access/permissions and assign the article to an issue.

  • Create New Version — publish an updated version of an already-published article while preserving prior versions for the public record.

  • Unpublish Article — remove an article from its issue and public view if needed.

Quick Reference — Editorial Decisions Cheat Sheet

Stage

Decision

Result

Submission

Send to Review / Send to Copyediting / Decline

Advances to Review, skips straight to Copyediting, or archives the submission.

Review

Request Revisions / Resubmit for Review / Send to Copyediting / Decline

Minor fix without a new round, major revision with a new round, advance, or archive.

Copyediting

Send to Production

Only available action; declining requires moving back to an earlier stage first.

Production

Schedule for Publication

Moves the submission to the Publication tab for metadata, galleys, and issue assignment.

Wrap-Up & Additional Resources

See also

Pair this tutorial with a live walkthrough in a sandbox/staging journal so editors can click through each stage and decision on a real (test) submission.