The Editorial Hub Ltd has been going from strength to strength since it started in 2014, so we caught up with our founders, Steph and Naomi, to find out a little bit more…
Q. Why did you decide to start The Editorial Hub?
We decided that we wanted to work together and set up a business together. We both believed that there were a lot of opportunities to work with publishers, societies and institutions to provide them with editorial management services.
Q. What were the first steps towards setting it up – what was exciting/scary?
We got ourselves out to networking events, and started approaching publishers and contacts. It was extremely scary, but when we got that first call we were beside ourselves with excitement!
Q. What are you most proud of achieving with The Editorial Hub?
Being able to work with such dynamic freelancers every day and providing work for them all. And it’s always exciting to win new work!
Suddenly realising that The Editorial Hub was not only a marketable enterprise, but one that was being recognised as a leading global supplier. That was amazing.
Q. What’s next for The Editorial Hub?
We have lots of new business coming our way and …… watch this space!
There are lots of submission systems available, all of which look wildly different but essentially do the same job – keeping all the information pertaining to your submission in one place where the editorial team can access it regardless of where they are in the world. For more information on why we use online systems to handle peer review, see our earlier post here.
At The Editorial Hub, our team predominantly works with online peer-review systems so they’re something we’re very familiar with. Here’s a quick introduction to some of our favourites!
ScholarOne Manuscripts (Clarivate)
ScholarOne (formerly Manuscript Central) is currently used by over 7,000 journals worldwide. If you’re involved in scholarly publishing in any way – be it as an author, reviewer, or editor – chances are you’ll have used ScholarOne at some point.
You know where you are with a ScholarOne system. The interface for authors and reviewers is fairly user-friendly with customisable instructions, and all the information that the editorial office needs is easily accessible. Generally speaking, ScholarOne is solid, dependable, and predictable – all good traits in a tool designed specifically to make life easier!
Editorial Manager (Aries Systems)
Also used by thousands of journals across the globe, Editorial Manager is a highly-configurable system “optimized to streamline editorial processes and communication”.
Editorial Manager has a lot of functionality and is very customisable. It also has some great menus that give you overviews of the manuscripts in progress grouped in various ways – e.g., by editor or by status – at the click of a button.
As with the previous two, EJPress also has a lot of functionality and is “fully configurable”.
All manuscripts in progress are sorted into folders which are preceded by a big red arrow when they contain papers that are awaiting action. It has a folder containing all chasers – reminder emails for authors, reviewers, and editors – which means it’s easy for the administrator to keep an eye on all papers with overdue tasks, regardless of what stage of peer review the paper’s reached.
ReView (River Valley Technologies)
ReView is a relatively new system designed to be as user friendly as possible, with an intuitive interface that only shows users the information they need to carry out the task at hand.
One big plus for ReView is the native handling of LaTeX files, something which other systems can struggle with. It’s extremely customisable so you can tailor it to your team and their preferred workflow, and the reporting function is simple to use and provides real time data on anything you need to know.