GITNUXSOFTWARE REVIEW
Education LearningTop 9 Best Journal Management Software of 2026
Compare journal management software tools like Janeway, Scholastica, and OpenReview, covering features and tradeoffs for research teams.
How we ranked these tools
Vendors set the topic, but our editors set the inclusion criteria and the evaluation framework before research starts.
Agents extract product evidence with provenance, then collect written reviews and transcribe video reviews and podcasts.
Framework: Features 40% · Ease 30% · Value 30%
Gitnux may earn a commission through links on this page. This does not influence our reviews. Editorial policy
Janeway is the best pick for editorial teams that need workflow control plus API-driven automation, since its API-centric editorial event model lets you connect submissions, decisions, and external services more flexibly than typical queue tools, whereas Scholastica suits smaller journals that want review coordination with stateful manuscript tracking without custom engineering.
Editor’s top 3 picks
Three quick recommendations before you dive into the full comparison below — each one leads on a different dimension.
Janeway
An API-centric model for editorial events and publishing operations enables custom automation beyond built-in queues.
Best for: Fits when editorial teams need workflow control plus API-driven integrations across submission and production.
Scholastica
Editor pickManuscript state tracking ties editorial decisions to reviewer and revision activity across multiple rounds.
Best for: Fits when journal teams need automated review coordination and stateful workflow tracking without custom engineering.
OpenReview
Editor pickA workflow engine that defines submission stages, reviewer invitations, and decision logic as configurable process steps.
Best for: Fits when editorial teams need configurable peer review workflows across multiple journals and repeatable governance.
Comparison Table
Janeway
vertical specialistOpen-source journal management and publishing platform developed at Birkbeck, University of London.
An API-centric model for editorial events and publishing operations enables custom automation beyond built-in queues.
Janeway fits research teams that want one system to cover editorial decisions through production-ready outputs. It includes configurable workflow steps for editorial staff, structured interactions for reviewers, and submission state transitions that can be aligned to a journal’s decision taxonomy. Integration depth shows up in its external connectivity for identifiers and metadata exchange, plus an API surface for automation and custom tooling around submissions and editorial events. Governance is handled with team roles, controlled permissions for editorial actions, and activity history that supports day-to-day traceability for audit workflows.
A tradeoff appears in customization effort, since deeper workflow logic and automation typically require implementation work rather than only clicking through templates. A common fit is managing multiple journals or imprints with shared editorial rules, while still keeping journal-specific settings for decision steps and production stages. Teams running higher submission volume usually benefit from consistent state transitions and automated reminders for reviewer and author tasks, because it reduces manual chasing across rounds.
- +API-first editorial automation connects submissions, events, and external services
- +Configurable workflow steps match journal decision paths and production stages
- +Role-based permissions control editorial actions across staff and boards
- +Consistent state transitions reduce manual status corrections
- –Deep workflow customization typically needs engineering support
- –Complex production configurations can take time to validate end-to-end
- –Some advanced governance patterns require deliberate setup across roles
- –Reviewer configuration options may feel less granular than custom-built stacks
Publisher platform ops teams
Automate cross-system editorial event handling
Reduced manual reconciliation
Journal editors and managing editors
Configure decision workflow per journal
Fewer off-process decisions
Show 2 more scenarios
Editorial operations staff
Run consistent review and reminders
Lower reviewer chaser load
Track reviewer assignments and automated follow-ups across pipeline states.
Production teams
Coordinate submission handoff to production
Faster issue assembly
Manage production-ready artifacts tied to submission state changes and editorial outcomes.
Best for: Fits when editorial teams need workflow control plus API-driven integrations across submission and production.
Scholastica
SMBPeer-review, production, and hosting platform built for small and mid-sized journals.
Manuscript state tracking ties editorial decisions to reviewer and revision activity across multiple rounds.
Scholastica is built around editorial workflow states that connect author submissions, editorial actions, and reviewer activity into a single record per manuscript. The system supports peer review with invitation, review submission, and conflict disclosure steps that journal teams can require as part of the process. For publisher operations, it includes tools for managing editorial board rosters, reviewer pools, and decision tracking across rounds.
A key tradeoff is that Scholastica’s depth of custom workflow logic can require careful configuration to match a journal’s exact decision taxonomy and revision limits. Scholastica fits best for teams that need reliable automation for reviewer invitations and reminders, such as journals running frequent review cycles with high reviewer throughput.
- +Workflow states link submissions, review, and decisions in one manuscript record
- +Reviewer invitation and automated reminder cadence reduces manual coordination
- +Editorial board and reviewer pool management supports sustained journal throughput
- +Revision round tracking keeps decisions and resubmissions auditable internally
- –Complex journals may need more configuration to match decision taxonomy precisely
- –Advanced workflow changes often require admin governance to avoid drift
- –Production handoff customization can feel constrained compared with custom builds
- –Some governance expectations land on journal admins rather than system defaults
Editorial office managers
Standardize review invitations and reminders
Faster time-to-decision tracking
Journal editors
Control revision round limits
Clear round-by-round decision trail
Show 2 more scenarios
Publisher operations
Manage reviewer pools across journals
Less duplication of reviewer records
Operations teams maintain centralized reviewer identities and board rosters per journal workflow.
Managing editors
Coordinate handoffs from review to issue
Fewer stuck items between teams
Managing editors move accepted manuscripts through production steps with status visibility.
Best for: Fits when journal teams need automated review coordination and stateful workflow tracking without custom engineering.
OpenReview
vertical specialistOpen peer-review and submission platform used by conferences and journals.
A workflow engine that defines submission stages, reviewer invitations, and decision logic as configurable process steps.
OpenReview’s core capability is workflow-driven peer review management, where submissions move through stages defined by the journal’s process settings. Reviewer matching and invitation logic can be tuned to the editorial decision taxonomy and revision cadence used by the journal. Double-blind review controls support role separation between authors and reviewers, while open review support enables transparent review visibility after configured triggers.
A key tradeoff is that workflow configuration requires more upfront design than systems with tightly predefined journal templates. OpenReview fits teams that need repeated adjustments to review stages, invitation rules, and decision outcomes across multiple journals or editorial programs, including cases that require consistent governance of review metadata and participants.
- +Workflow engine supports distinct review stages without rewriting the product
- +Supports both double-blind and open review visibility controls
- +Reviewer invitation and decision flows can be tied to submission states
- +Identity authentication supports consistent author accounts across submissions
- –Workflow setup requires domain knowledge of configurable process logic
- –Some editorial UI tasks depend on configuration rather than guided templates
- –Complex multi-round review rules can increase operational overhead
- –Integration requires engineering time for nonstandard publication pipelines
Editorial operations teams
Configure multi-round review stages
Fewer manual workflow changes
Journals running double-blind review
Separate author and reviewer visibility
Consistent blinding across submissions
Show 2 more scenarios
Publishers with multiple editorial boards
Run open review with board roles
Transparent review histories
Open review visibility can be activated based on defined triggers and participant roles.
Technical editorial teams
Automate manuscript metadata pipelines
Reduced manual metadata handling
Integration paths support connecting identity data and publication metadata workflows to downstream systems.
Best for: Fits when editorial teams need configurable peer review workflows across multiple journals and repeatable governance.
PubPub
vertical specialistCollaborative publishing platform for open-access journals and research communities.
API-first workflow automation that connects manuscript decisions to publication page output and metadata.
PubPub is a journal management and publishing workflow system that pairs manuscript handling with publication-ready page layouts. It supports submission and editorial workflows while keeping the author-facing experience tied to a publication data structure.
- +Manuscript workflow stays tightly coupled to publication-ready page generation
- +API surface supports automation of submissions, decisions, and metadata synchronization
- +Configurable editorial stages for multi-round processes and publication assembly
- +Extensibility options support integrating identifiers and downstream publishing steps
- –Governance and workflow configuration require careful upfront setup discipline
- –Reviewer matching logic is limited compared with systems focused on reviewer databases
- –Complex editorial board and role governance can take time to model correctly
- –Submission and production pipelines may require add-ons for advanced publishing integrations
Open access journal editors
Assemble issues from structured publication data
Faster issue assembly
Academic societies publishing proceedings
Run review rounds across publications
Reduced workflow drift
Show 2 more scenarios
Research teams with submission pipelines
Integrate identifiers via API hooks
Cleaner metadata handoff
An API-first approach supports connecting external identifiers and indexing-oriented flows to the editorial workflow.
Editorial operations coordinators
Manage decisions and revision status
Consistent revision routing
Editorial coordinators can route revisions through configured decision points and review round states.
Best for: Fits when editorial teams want API-driven workflow automation tied to publication pages and data.
eJournalPress
enterpriseeJournalPress provides manuscript submission, peer review, production tracking, and publishing administration.
Queue-based editorial stages that map directly from decision outcomes to copyediting and proofing steps.
eJournalPress is a journal management software used by editorial offices that need end-to-end handling of submissions through editorial decisions and production. Its core workflow centers on managing reviewer invitations, tracking decision paths, and coordinating revisions with queue-based editorial operations.
- +Queue-driven editorial stages reduce manual status chasing
- +Reviewer invitation and reminder workflow supports consistent throughput
- +Editorial decision tracking clarifies who acted on each decision node
- +Issue assembly ties accepted content to publication outputs
- –Advanced configuration requires careful governance of roles and permissions
- –API and automation depth appears limited for highly customized integrations
- –Reviewer matching quality depends on the completeness of reviewer profiles
- –Production workflows may need setup time to align with specific journal styles
Journal editorial offices
Coordinate reviewer invitations and status
Lower invitation churn
Production editors and copyeditors
Move manuscripts through production queues
Fewer manual handoffs
Show 2 more scenarios
Managing editors
Follow structured decision paths
More predictable turnaround
Decision tracking supports consistent routing from initial review to revisions and final outcomes.
Scholarly publishing integrators
Map metadata for indexing systems
More reliable exports
Standard metadata and interoperability points fit indexing and long-term preservation requirements for published content.
Best for: Fits when editorial teams need controlled workflows from submission to proofs, with practical review tracking and issue assembly.
Open Journal Systems Hosting by Ubiquity Press
vertical specialistHosted journal publishing and management services built around scholarly workflow infrastructure.
Managed hosting around OJS configuration and production output handling, reducing platform operations while keeping journal-level workflow governance.
Open Journal Systems Hosting by Ubiquity Press delivers a hosted Open Journal Systems setup built for running journal editorial workflows without managing server operations. It supports the standard OJS manuscript submission system, peer review process, and editorial role controls inside the journal environment.
- +Hosted OJS reduces deployment tasks for editorial and ops teams
- +Editorial workflows work inside the OJS configuration for each journal
- +XML-based production outputs support downstream typesetting pipelines
- +Role-based access helps separate editors, reviewers, and authors
- –Reviewer-facing automation depends on OJS configuration and optional plugins
- –Deep customization of hosted components can be limited by the managed layer
Editorial teams running journals
Operate submissions and peer review
Less operational overhead
Publishing managers
Control editorial roles inside OJS
Fewer access errors
Show 2 more scenarios
Scholarly production staff
Generate XML-facing production outputs
Smoother production pipelines
Production outputs and metadata align with XML-based workflows and downstream indexing expectations.
Organizations with many journal cycles
Govern ongoing publication operations
More consistent releases
Hosted operation shifts effort toward configuration, moderation, and governance for repeat publication cycles.
Best for: Fits when publishers want hosted OJS operations with strong editorial workflow control and standard production outputs.
Scholastica
vertical specialistPeer review and journal publishing platform for academic society and university press journals.
Workflow configuration that drives round-based decisions and file handoffs without rebuilding the editorial process each time.
Scholastica is journal management software designed for research teams that need an editorial workflow engine with submission handling and review management in one place. Manuscript processing is built around configurable editorial steps, reviewer invitations, decision tracking, and structured production queues.
- +Configurable editorial workflow that connects submissions, review, revisions, and decisions
- +Reviewer invitation and tracking reduce back-and-forth across rounds
- +Structured production queues support consistent handoffs to copyediting and proofing
- +Supports ORCID authentication and Crossref deposit workflows for standard publishing steps
- –API depth is uneven across integrations, which can force manual bridging for edge cases
- –Complex governance setups require careful RBAC and workflow configuration discipline
- –Reviewer matching behavior needs validation for specialized reviewer pools
- –Advanced indexing and archive routing can require additional operational mapping work
Research groups managing journals
Run configurable editorial workflow steps
More consistent processing
Editorial boards and staff
Track revisions through proof handoffs
Lower revision confusion
Show 2 more scenarios
Editorial operations with identity requirements
Use ORCID authentication for reviewers
Faster reviewer onboarding
Integration coverage supports ORCID authentication so reviewer onboarding aligns with identity management needs.
Teams doing Crossref deposits
Send Crossref deposit-ready metadata
More accurate deposits
Crossref deposit workflows integrate with internal editorial governance to support downstream citation systems.
Best for: Fits when mid-size publishers need configurable editorial workflow control plus ORCID and Crossref deposit integration.
Editorial Express
SMBEditorial Express manages online manuscript submission, reviewer invitations, editorial decisions, and revisions.
Reviewer database driven assignment and invitation tracking tied to editorial decision states.
Editorial Express combines manuscript submission, peer review coordination, and decision tracking in one administrative workflow, with role-based access used to separate author and reviewer actions.
- +Workflow states support desk reject, revision rounds, and structured decisions
- +Reviewer database and board roster reduce manual invitation work
- +Metadata-guided submissions keep files and article information consistent
- +Notification rules track reminders and status changes across roles
- –Deep configuration of workflow logic can require operational discipline
- –External indexing and deposits depend on integrations outside core workflow
- –Advanced review types beyond standard blind workflows can be limited
- –Bulk changes to reviewer invitations can be slower than desired
Editorial administrators
Collect submission metadata and files
Less re-entry work
Editors managing peer review
Coordinate reviewer lists and invitations
Fewer stalled reviews
Show 2 more scenarios
Reviewers
Work on submissions with role-based access
Clear action boundaries
Role-based access separates reviewer actions from author and editor actions while decision routing stays controlled.
Editorial teams handling resubmissions
Reuse reviewer boards for repeat submissions
Shorter resubmission setup
Repeat submissions to the same community can reuse reviewer lists to keep workflows consistent across cycles.
Best for: Fits when editorial teams want configurable decision flows and reliable reviewer management without heavy custom development.
eJournalPress
vertical specialistWeb-based manuscript submission and peer review management for academic journals.
Reviewer invitation templates tied to automated reminder cadence streamline reviewer throughput across long review cycles.
eJournalPress targets journal operations with an end-to-end manuscript and editorial workflow used for submissions through issue publication. It provides configuration for editorial roles and editorial board management so desk decisions, reviewer handling, and revision routing stay consistent across papers.
- +Role-based workflow configuration supports consistent editorial routing across staff
- +Reviewer invitation templates and reminder cadence reduce manual follow-up work
- +Manuscript lifecycle tracking covers submissions through decision and revisions
- +XML output handling fits teams that need machine-readable editorial production
- –Advanced integrations depend on external connectors rather than native publishing links
- –Workflow customization can require careful governance to keep routing consistent
- –Data-driven reviewer assignment controls are limited compared with specialized matching tools
- –Some downstream indexing steps need manual operational coordination
Journal operations teams
Route submissions through publication steps
Consistent paper progression
Editorial board coordinators
Manage board membership and reviewer workflows
Reduced coordination overhead
Show 2 more scenarios
Production teams needing structured outputs
Handle PDF and XML downstream publishing
More predictable exports
Built-in PDF and XML handling supports downstream publishing workflows that require both formats.
Editors tracking reviewer responsiveness
Automate invitation reminders and cadence
Faster review completions
Automation around editorial steps reduces manual status chasing for reviewer invitations and reminders.
Best for: Fits when mid-size publishers need controlled editorial workflow automation and XML-ready production outputs.
Conclusion
After evaluating 9 journal management software, Janeway stands out as our overall top pick — it scored highest across our combined criteria of features, ease of use, and value, which is why it sits at #1 in the rankings above.
Use the comparison table and detailed reviews above to validate the fit against your own requirements before committing to a tool.
Frequently Asked Questions About Journal Management Software
How do Elyra Manuscript Management, OpenReview, and Janeway implement configurable editorial workflow steps?
What integration surface area do PubPub and Janeway provide for editorial metadata and publishing operations?
How does ORCID authentication affect manuscript intake flows in Scholastica compared with Elyra Manuscript Management?
What access controls and audit logging are typically used for editor and administrator operations in Janeway and OpenReview?
How does data migration work when moving submission histories and editorial state into eJournalPress or Editorial Express?
When do reviewers typically get invited and reminded in PeerTrack versus Scholastica?
What breaks if reviewer assignment requires both a reviewer database and workflow-state logic in Editorial Express and PeerTrack?
Where does conflict handling differ between OpenReview’s review process modes and Open Journal Systems Hosting by Ubiquity Press?
How do DOI deposit and indexing-related publishing steps connect to workflows in Elyra Manuscript Management versus eJournalPress?
Tools reviewed
Primary sources checked during evaluation.
Referenced in the comparison table and product reviews above.
How to Choose the Right Journal Management Software
Options differ most in how their editorial workflow handles journal progress: editorial workflow depth, customization, and the control you get over metadata and automation. We focus on choices you can verify during a demo by testing the workflow, exports, and permissions.
Editorial workflow depth
Why it matters
Editorial workflow depth decides whether different roles can move papers through stages without workarounds. If the workflow is shallow, you end up rebuilding steps in spreadsheets or email threads.
How to check
Ask the demo team to walk through a paper from submission to final decision using your roles. Look for configurable stages, clear status tracking, and the exact actions available at each stage.
Automation rules for routing and reminders
Why it matters
Automation rules for routing and reminders reduce manual chasing and keep journals on schedule. When rules are limited, staff spend time copying the same updates across messages.
How to check
In a test workflow, request an automation that triggers after a status change and sends a reminder at a set cadence. Confirm the trigger conditions, timing controls, and whether messages can be templated.
Metadata capture and export quality
Why it matters
Metadata capture and export quality affects what you can reuse for indexing, internal reporting, and downstream publishing steps. Weak metadata fields force re-entry and increase inconsistency.
How to check
Run a sample record through the workflow and review what metadata gets stored and when it becomes editable. Export a sample package and check that key fields and stage history come through as expected.
Role permissions and audit log
Why it matters
Role permissions and audit log help governance when multiple staff handle submissions and edits. Without it, you cannot explain who changed what, or limit access to sensitive files and decisions.
How to check
Create two roles (e.g., editorial staff and external contributor) and request a rights matrix demonstration. Then change a record and verify you can view an audit trail showing the actor and timestamp.
Submission and file handling controls
Why it matters
Submission and file handling controls determine whether you can enforce consistent inputs and reduce version confusion. Good file controls make it easier to manage revisions, supplementary files, and document versions.
How to check
Ask for a demo where a submitter uploads multiple files, then a revision arrives. Confirm how the system versions files, what staff can replace or lock, and how users see the latest version.
Integration surface and API coverage
Why it matters
Integration surface and API coverage affects how much work you can automate with other tools that a journal already uses. Limited API access often turns automation into manual copying.
How to check
Ask what events can be pulled or pushed via API (for example, new submissions, status changes, or exports). Request a short example call or workflow that moves data both ways, not just one-off downloads.
Red flags
- Workflow steps are fixed and cannot match your journal stages.
- Automations trigger only via staff actions, not status-based rules.
- Exports omit stage history or key metadata needed for reuse.
Fit by situation
- If you manage many internal stages and decisions, prioritize Editorial workflow depth to avoid manual glue work.
- If you run on deadlines with frequent status changes, prioritize Automation rules for routing and reminders.
- If you must reuse records downstream and track changes, prioritize Role permissions and audit log.
Funding and competing interests
This study was co-funded by several of the vendors assessed in it. No single vendor funded it. Funders could propose the market studied.
They had no role in selecting vendors, setting or weighting criteria, analysing data or drawing conclusions, and they received the same factual-accuracy check as every other vendor assessed.
Market definition, inclusion rules and criteria weights were fixed by an editor before research began and did not change afterwards. Editorial process →
Keep exploring
Comparing two specific tools?
Software Alternatives
See head-to-head software comparisons with feature breakdowns, pricing, and our recommendation for each use case.
Explore software alternatives→In this category
Education Learning alternatives
See side-by-side comparisons of education learning tools and pick the right one for your stack.
Compare education learning tools→