Depending on the practices your journal chooses to follow, you may have an editorial board made up of various roles with diverse responsibilities. Many journal editorial boards include roles such as Editor-in-Chief, Managing Editor, Section Editor, Peer Reviewer, Copy Editor, Layout Editor / Production Coordinator, and Marketing Manager. For more details about possible editorial board roles and their functions, see Roles and Responsibilities.
OJS has several predefined user roles with permission settings preset. Both the roles and the permissions can be customized according to your journal’s needs. See Permission and Roles for details about the various roles, which sections of the workflow are assigned to each by default, and how to edit or add roles and change the permissions.
This policy will outline the journal peer review policy and processes. A transparent and clear review policy lends journals credibility and helps potential authors anticipate the upcoming process.
While many journals have an internal process, it is highly recommended that you codify and make the policy publicly accessible. Many indexes require a transparent review policy for inclusion.
You should also be aware of possible concerns around bias that can occur in peer review, which make the process less valid and can be harmful to members of groups that are underrepresented in scholarship.
Your review policy should clearly state whether the journal uses peer review and which form of review it uses
Content is adapted from the PKP School Becoming an Editor course.
Reviewers do not know the names of the authors, nor do the authors know who the reviews are.
Reviewers know the names of the authors, but the authors do not know the names of the reviewers.
Names of both the authors and reviewers are available, and the review may be made publicly available alongside the reviewers’ names. This type of review is gaining popularity in more recent years because it is the most transparent when identifying conflicts of interest and can be more conducive to helpful and constructive criticism. For journals aimed at very small communities, where people’s areas of expertise already indicate their identity to their peers, this may be the only option.
Items are reviewed by members of the editorial team, either prior to or instead of being reviewed by external peer reviewers.
In addition to outlining the type of peer review conducted for various sections of the journal, your peer review policy may clarify:
In addition to your public policy, it is a good idea to provide additional guidelines for your reviewers on how to complete the review. You can also ask Reviewers to agree to declare competing interests. See the Review Guidance section for more details. You can set both at:
Settings > Workflow > Review > Reviewer Guidance
Similarly, you can create forms for Reviewers to fill out that allow for more quantitative comparisons. See the Review Forms section for more details. Set those up at:
Settings > Workflow > Review > Review Forms
You can choose to make both documents publicly available.
Additional resources on peer review: