Editorial Manager

Editorial Manager
Name	Editorial Manager
Developer	Aries Systems Corporation
Released	1990s
Operating system	Cross-platform
Genre	Manuscript submission and peer review system
Licence	Proprietary

Editorial Manager Editorial Manager is a web-based manuscript submission and peer review system used by scholarly journals, publishers, and research institutions to manage the editorial process for academic articles, reviews, and conference proceedings. Developed to streamline interactions among authors, editors, reviewers, and production staff, it integrates workflow components for submission intake, manuscript tracking, reviewer selection, and decision notifications. The platform is widely adopted across disciplines, interfacing with bibliographic services, indexing databases, and publishing platforms.

Overview

Editorial Manager functions as a hosted software-as-a-service platform that connects stakeholders in the publication pipeline, including authors, peer reviewers, and editorial boards associated with journals and publishers such as Springer Nature, Elsevier, Wiley, Taylor & Francis, and Oxford University Press. The system supports manuscript versioning, automated reminders, and metrics collection for editorial decisions tied to identifiers like DOI and ORCID. It integrates with external systems used by organizations including CrossRef, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and CLOCKSS for metadata exchange and archiving.

Features and Workflow

The platform provides modules for submission, reviewer selection, editorial decision-making, and production handoff. Typical workflow steps include manuscript upload by an author, initial screening by an editor, reviewer invitation and assignment, peer review return, and final decision leading to acceptance, revision, or rejection. Built-in features include templates for decision letters used by editorial boards of journals such as The Lancet, Nature, Science, PLoS, and Cell Press imprints. Administrative tools interface with identity services like ORCID and funder registries such as NIH and Wellcome Trust to capture funding acknowledgments and conflict-of-interest statements. Integration with typesetting vendors and production platforms used by Ingram Content Group and EDP Sciences supports downstream workflows.

History and Development

Editorial Manager was developed by Aries Systems Corporation during the 1990s as publishers moved from paper-based to electronic submission. Its evolution parallels shifts in scholarly communication driven by events and initiatives including the rise of arXiv, the creation of CrossRef, and policies from agencies such as European Commission and National Institutes of Health. Over time, the product added modules to support open access publishing models promoted by advocates like Peter Suber and organizations such as SPARC and DOAJ. Partnerships and migrations involving publishers including SAGE Publications and Cambridge University Press reflect industry consolidation and platform standardization trends associated with companies like Clarivate and Digital Science.

Adoption and Usage

The system is used by a broad mix of commercial and society publishers, university presses, and independent journals across disciplines ranging from life sciences to humanities. Large-scale adopters encompass publishers and journals such as BMJ, Wiley-Blackwell, American Chemical Society, and society publishers like IEEE-affiliated titles. Institutional adoption strategies often involve coordination with library publishing services at institutions such as Harvard University, University of California, and University of Oxford. Usage patterns are influenced by initiatives from funding bodies like Wellcome Trust, mandates from organizations such as Horizon Europe, and indexing practices of PubMed Central and Scopus.

Security and Privacy

As a platform handling unpublished research and personal data, the system implements access controls, audit logs, and encryption to meet regulatory expectations set by frameworks such as the General Data Protection Regulation and standards referenced by agencies like NIST. Publishers often negotiate data processing agreements and institute retention policies aligned with institutional review boards at universities including Stanford University and Yale University. Interoperability with identity providers such as ORCID and authentication services used by organizations like Google and Microsoft raises considerations about third-party data sharing and consent governed by statutes like the California Consumer Privacy Act.

Criticisms and Controversies

Critiques of the platform focus on usability, costs, vendor lock-in, and handling of sensitive materials. Journal editors and society publishers have raised concerns similar to those voiced around platforms operated by large vendors including Elsevier and Springer Nature regarding pricing, feature parity, and migration burdens. Transparency advocates and proponents of open infrastructure such as Coalition for Networked Information and Open Science Framework have questioned reliance on proprietary systems versus community-driven alternatives used by projects like Open Journal Systems and initiatives led by organizations such as PKP. High-profile incidents involving peer review integrity and data breaches across the scholarly ecosystem—involving publishers and platforms like Wiley, Taylor & Francis, and Cambridge University Press—have increased scrutiny of editorial platforms’ security practices and audit capabilities.

Category:Scholarly publishing software