Scholastica

The NEW Scholastica Manuscripts Table features: ??More granular peer review status details ??Powerful advanced configuration options ??Ability for editors to save custom views (and set their own default!) Learn more: https://bit.ly/3Uvr6BH #PeerReview #ScholarlyPublishing

?? Upcoming webinar: Join Scholastica and The George Washington University - College of Professional Studies MPS in Publishing program for "The Next Gen Scholarly Publishing Tech Stack: 2025 Roundtable" on April 18th at 4 PM ET. During the webinar, seasoned and early-career scholarly communication professionals will discuss which areas of publisher tech stacks will demand the most attention in the coming years and what's needed to keep modernizing tools/processes for younger generations entering the workforce. The roundtable will be moderated by John W. Warren and feature: - Janaynne do Amaral, Postdoctoral Research Associate, School of Information Sciences, Research Services, U Illinois at Urbana-Champaign - Brian Cody, CEO and Co-Founder of Scholastica - Alicea Hibbard, MHA, Ethics and IDEAA Senior Associate at the American Society for Microbiology - Mikayla Lee, E-Publishing Lead for the GW Journal of Ethics in Publishing and GWU MPS Publishing program student (graduating 2025) Link to register in the comments??

?? One of the most frustrating possible scenarios for editors, authors, and reviewers during the peer review process is getting caught on a merry-go-round of revise and resubmit requests. What can you do to avoid such situations? This #JournalTipsTuesday, we're rounding up advice from a past Scholastica interview with Wendy Laura Belcher, Professor at Princeton University (see link in the comments section). Many thanks to Wendy for imparting this editorial wisdom! 1?? Communicate article decisions VERY clearly First: If you've decided to reject a submission, state that *directly* in your decision letter. In an effort to let authors down gently, editors can sometimes end up leaving them confused (e.g., the author wonders — "Did they just reject my paper outright, or are they open to revisions?"). To avoid putting your editors and authors in this awkward situation, be sure to always use unambiguous language in rejection letters. Ok, on to R&Rs... If you decide a manuscript requires revision, directly state what you think needs to change in your communication with the author(s). Rather than just sending the author(s) reviewer comments to try to parse out on their own, Bullet out the specific areas of concern you want them to address. Early career researchers especially may end up thinking they have to take *every* single reviewer suggestion into account if you don't state otherwise, causing them to spend more time on edits than actually necessary. 2???Help authors interpret reviewer comments Building off the suggestions above — it's critical to read reviewer comments closely and remove or address anything potentially confusing or unconstructive. For example, if a reviewer says a line in the introduction of the paper is "incongruous with the rest of the findings," make clear to the author whether that means they need to rework the entire article body or simply remove/reword the intro sentence in question. 3???Set limits on R&R rounds and acceptable revisions each round Finally, one of the best ways to avoid the R&R merry-go-round is to establish a decision timeframe for all manuscripts (e.g., all manuscripts will receive a decision in 3 months or less). To prevent snowballs of suggested edits with each round of review, editors should establish ground rules with reviewers around making additional suggestions in follow-up R&R rounds. For example, you might advise reviewers that you will not consider recommendations around altering the structure of a manuscript after the first round of review. Thanks again to Prof Belcher for sharing these tips! We hope they help you keep peer review flowing smoothly. Have questions or additional insights to share? Add it to the comments! ?? #scholarlypublishing #peerreview

When publishers learn that Scholastica's article typesetting process uses automation, a common question is:?Can you customize PDFs to our style? In short,?YES!?We offer a range of PDF customization options. We know it's better to show than tell when it comes to design. So, we created a few brief "lookbooks" featuring custom PDFs Scholastica produced for journal publishers across disciplines. All the article examples are fully OA. To see more examples, check out the blog post linked in the comments??

ICYMI: James Butcher offers a deep dive into trends surrounding the rapid increase in published research articles over the past decade. Lots of interesting insights to unpack ??

?? New user spotlight: We welcome Animal History, published by the University of California Press, to the Scholastica community (now using our peer review system)! Learn more and submit here: https://lnkd.in/eNtjucdy?

Are you part of a small or medium-sized journal publisher working to keep up with the needs of the rapidly changing research landscape? This #JournalTipsTuesday, we're sharing an opportunity to make your voice heard. Today, Scholastica and Maverick Publishing Specialists announce the launch of a global survey on the "Technology Needs of Small and Medium Journal Publishers" to gather insights into the digital tools and workflow optimizations that would best serve the smaller publishing community for its members and the infrastructural and service providers who support them. The survey results will be compiled into a free openly available report. The survey questions span the following areas: ?? Platform and workflow management:?including the technology categories small-to-mid-sized publishers are currently using, their technical pain points, and priorities for peer review and publishing process optimization. ?? Research integrity and the rise of AI:?including the research integrity areas participants are most concerned about, research integrity automation priorities, and AI tool usage/sentiments. ?? Vendor collaboration and support:?including how publishers would like to engage with technology solution providers and how they anticipate their technology needs will evolve over the next few years. We acknowledge that definitions of "small-to-medium-sized" organizations may differ by industry, country, etc.?For the purposes of this survey, a "small-to-medium-sized publisher" is defined as a publishing organization with under 1,000 employees. If you work with a scholarly journal publisher that meets the above "small-to-medium-sized" criteria, we encourage you to take the survey to help develop collective insights. The survey welcomes feedback from publishing programs across research disciplines and takes only ~10 minutes to complete. Responses will be published in an aggregated and anonymized form (no personally identifying fields are required). Link to the survey in the comments??? #ScholarlyPublishing #ResearchIntegrity

As Project MUSE and its members celebrate the successful launch of MUSE S2O, it's an exciting example of university presses and scholarly societies advancing sustainable OA publishing. Which OA journal models do you think have the most potential? Check out the blog linked in the comments for some notable recent developments. ?? #OpenAccess #OpenScience #S2O

Over 3,000 individuals and organizations have signed the Declaration to Defend Research Against U.S. Government Censorship. Learn how you can get involved: https://lnkd.in/eTZfHY-q #DefendResearch #standupforscience2025

Have you seen the schedule for the 2025 EASE Conference?? This year's theme, "Editing in the Age of Misinformation," touches on many timely topics like #ResearchIntegrity checks, trust indicators, and more. The Scholastica team will be exhibiting and speaking. If you plan on attending, be sure to stop by our booth to say hi! Learn more about this great event ??