Studio-native Editorial Workflow
Open Manuscript Studio can manage the complete editorial workflow for a DNS-verified journal or press that does not use OJS or OMP.
Operational beta in Studio 0.3.0-beta.1. The complete submission → review → author revision → editorial decision → publication path is implemented and is being hardened for the Studio 1.0 line. OJS/OMP integrations keep their existing authority boundary.
Authority boundary
Studio uses exactly one authoritative editorial workflow for a publication venue.
- OJS journal: submission, review rounds, reviewer assignments and editorial decisions remain authoritative in OJS.
- OMP press: the corresponding workflow remains authoritative in OMP.
- DNS-verified venue without OJS/OMP: Studio may own the editorial workflow described on this page.
Studio rejects the native path for a venue that has a verified authoritative OJS/OMP binding. This prevents competing states such as OJS saying “revision required” while Studio says “accepted”.
End-to-end flow
Author writes the manuscript in Studio
↓
Submit exact committed revision to the journal/press
↓
Editorial inbox
↓
Editor assigns scientific reviewer(s)
↓
Reviewer accepts and reviews in Studio
↓
Reviewer submits comments + recommendation
↓
Editor closes the submitted review assignment
↓
Editor chooses:
├── Request revision
├── Reject
└── Accept
↓
If revision is requested:
Author edits in Studio and submits a new committed revision
↓
Editor may accept it or start a new review round
↓
Editorial ACCEPT decision
↓
Publishable
↓
Publication
Editorial acceptance and publication are separate actions. Acceptance records an immutable decision for one exact manuscript revision. Publication later consumes that decision.
Author submission
In Extended metadata, the author selects a DNS-verified journal or press. The new Editorial workflow screen then allows the exact committed revision to be submitted.
The submission stores:
- manuscript ID and committed revision ID;
- canonical manuscript-state SHA-256 digest;
- publication-content SHA-256 digest;
- canonical manuscript snapshot;
- reviewer-safe manuscript projection;
- referenced binary assets, verified by SHA-256;
- publication-venue identity and verified domain;
- workflow status and append-only event history.
The scholarly manuscript remains the canonical document. Editorial workflow state is stored separately.
Editorial inbox
Accounts holding an active EDITOR or EDITOR_IN_CHIEF role at the verified venue see that venue's Studio-native submissions in the editorial inbox. Editor assignment is persisted explicitly in the Studio database so inbox filtering and later decision evidence do not depend on transient client state.
An editor can open the exact submitted revision on another device because the submission preserves the revision snapshot and its verified assets.
A DOMAIN_ADMIN role alone is not enough to make editorial decisions.
Reviewer assignment and privacy
The editor assigns one or more existing Studio accounts as scientific reviewers. Studio-native scientific review defaults to double blind. The submitting author cannot be assigned as a scientific reviewer of the same submission.
The reviewer receives the existing Studio review workspace and can:
- accept or decline the assignment;
- read the anonymous manuscript projection;
- add author-visible or editor-only feedback;
- submit a recommendation.
A declined invitation remains in the audit history but does not become decision-bearing review evidence. The editor may assign a replacement reviewer in the same round; the round becomes decision-capable when every non-declined scientific assignment in that round has been completed.
The author-facing workflow never exposes the reviewer's Studio identity. Editor-only feedback is also excluded from the author view.
Author revision
After a completed review round, the editor may choose Request revision and send an editorial message.
The author sees:
- the revision request;
- author-visible reviewer comments;
- the reviewer recommendation;
- the current workflow state.
After editing the manuscript, the author submits a new committed revision. Studio records its new revision ID and SHA-256 state/content digests.
If a new review round is started, Studio will not allow acceptance to fall back to an older completed round while the current round is unfinished.
Editorial decision
The editor has a separate Accept manuscript action in the editorial workflow.
Acceptance uses Studio's immutable EditorialDecision evidence and binds the decision to:
- exact manuscript revision;
- manuscript-state digest;
- publication-content digest;
- completed scientific review evidence;
- review round;
- deciding editor;
- DNS-verified publication venue and authority snapshot.
Changing the manuscript after acceptance changes its digest. The old acceptance cannot be reused for changed publication content.
Publication
After acceptance, the exact revision is publishable.
The publication screen does not create the Studio-native editorial acceptance. It only consumes an already recorded decision.
A successful publication moves the workflow to PUBLISHED only when the external URL is under the verified publication-venue domain or one of its subdomains. Publishing the same accepted article to an unrelated website may still succeed as an external delivery, but the verified venue submission remains ACCEPTED.
Publisher-verified output may carry:
OMI
PEER REVIEW
VERIFIED
The seal refers to revision-bound editorial evidence, not to DNS alone.
Workflow states
| State | Meaning |
|---|---|
SUBMITTED | Exact committed revision submitted |
IN_REVIEW | Current review round has assigned reviewer(s) |
REVISION_REQUESTED | Editor requested changes |
REVISION_SUBMITTED | Author submitted a new committed revision |
ACCEPTED | Exact revision has an immutable editorial acceptance |
REJECTED | Submission rejected |
PUBLISHED | Accepted revision recorded as published |