GITNUXSOFTWARE ADVICE
Education LearningTop 10 Best Journal Management Software of 2026
Ranking of top 10 journal management software for publishers and research teams, with Elyra, OpenReview, and Janeway compared by criteria and tradeoffs.
How we ranked these tools
Gitnux editors write the brief first: the topic, the inclusion rules, and the frame for what belongs.
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 rankings. Editorial policy
OpenReview is the best fit for editorial teams that need configurable peer-review workflows across multiple journals with repeatable governance, whereas Scholastica works well for small to mid-sized journals that want automated review coordination and stateful 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.
OpenReview
A 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.
Janeway
Editor pickAn 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.
Comparison Table
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.
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.
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
Best for: Fits when editorial teams want API-driven workflow automation tied to publication pages and data.
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
Best for: Fits when publishers want hosted OJS operations with strong editorial workflow control and standard production outputs.
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
Best for: Fits when editorial teams need controlled workflows from submission to proofs, with practical review tracking and issue assembly.
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
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
Best for: Fits when mid-size publishers need controlled editorial workflow automation and XML-ready production outputs.
PeerTrack
vertical specialistPeer review and manuscript management system from Mira Scientific Press.
Automated reviewer invitation and reminder cadence tied to the configured review workflow stages.
PeerTrack manages manuscript submission workflows, moving papers from author submission through reviewer handling to editorial decisions. The system supports peer review workflows with configurable review stages and reviewer invitation and reminder automation.
- +Workflow automation reduces manual handoffs between submission, review, and decision steps
- +Reviewer database and invitation tooling supports consistent reviewer selection and tracking
- +Time-to-decision metrics make editorial operations visible across batches
- +Configurable review stages support double-blind and open review variations
- –API and data export depth can be limited for highly custom integrations
- –Advanced governance needs careful role and permissions configuration by admins
Best for: Fits when publishers need configurable editorial workflows with automated reviewer handling and operational reporting.
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
Best for: Fits when mid-size publishers need configurable editorial workflow control plus ORCID and Crossref deposit integration.
Conclusion
After evaluating 10 journal management software, OpenReview 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.
How to Choose the Right Journal Management Software
Journal management software typically combines a submission pipeline, a peer review module, and a production-facing workflow so editorial teams can move manuscripts from decision states to copyediting and proof handling.
This buyer's guide covers OpenReview, Janeway, and Scholastica, along with PubPub, OJS Hosting by Ubiquity Press, eJournalPress, Editorial Express, eJournalPress, PeerTrack, and Scholastica, using integration depth, automation and API surface, and admin and governance controls as the decision lenses.
Journal Management Software for configuring peer review workflows, submissions, and production handoffs
Journal management software manages editorial workflow steps that turn manuscript submissions into review assignments, decision outcomes, and production-ready outputs.
OpenReview defines submission stages, reviewer invitations, and decision logic as configurable process steps so workflow behavior is driven by process configuration rather than bespoke engineering.
Janeway applies an API-centric model for editorial events and publishing operations so teams can automate routing across submission and production stages using an event and integration surface rather than only internal queues.
Evaluation criteria that map to editorial workflow control
Journal management software succeeds when it can represent editorial workflow states as first-class configuration rather than scattered forms. OpenReview does this by defining submission stages, reviewer invitations, and decision logic as configurable process steps.
Editorial teams also need integration and automation that carry work across the manuscript lifecycle. Janeway and PubPub both center an API surface for editorial events and publishing operations, which reduces manual handoffs between workflow, metadata, and publication output.
Configurable workflow engine and decision logic
OpenReview uses a workflow engine where submission stages, reviewer invitations, and decision logic come from process steps. Scholastica ties manuscript state tracking to reviewer and revision activity across multiple rounds.
API-first editorial automation and event surface
Janeway is API-centric and treats editorial events and publishing operations as integration targets. PubPub exposes API-driven workflow automation that connects manuscript decisions to publication page output and metadata.
Round-based manuscript state tracking and handoffs
Scholastica keeps a stateful manuscript record that links submissions, review, decisions, and subsequent revisions across rounds. Editorial Express connects structured decision flows to reviewer database assignment and invitation tracking across those same states.
Queue-based editorial stages tied to outcomes
eJournalPress uses queue-driven editorial stages that map directly from decision outcomes to copyediting and proofing steps. eJournalPress also emphasizes reviewer invitation and reminder workflow for throughput across controlled stages.
Reviewer management connected to workflow stages
Editorial Express combines a reviewer database and board roster with workflow states that support desk reject and revision rounds. PeerTrack ties automated reviewer invitation and reminder cadence directly to configured review workflow stages.
Governance depth for permissions and workflow configuration
OpenReview can support workflow governance through configurable process steps, but workflow setup requires domain knowledge of process logic. PeerTrack and Scholastica both flag governance and role permission configuration as an admin discipline area for preventing workflow drift.
Pick based on workflow configuration philosophy and integration control depth
The main fork is whether workflow behavior should be driven by a configurable workflow engine or by an API-led event model that orchestrates operations. OpenReview fits teams that want process steps to define how editorial stages behave, while Janeway fits teams that want the integration surface to drive automation across submission and production.
A second fork determines how much governance and operational setup can be handled internally. Scholastica and Editorial Express reduce custom engineering by keeping state tracking and reviewer processes within the platform, while PubPub and Janeway shift more work into integration design and end-to-end validation.
Choose the workflow control model
If workflow stages, invitations, and decision logic must be configurable without building custom tooling, pick OpenReview or Scholastica based on how the editorial team manages state across rounds. If editorial events need to trigger external systems through an API-first surface, pick Janeway or PubPub to align automation with publication and metadata operations.
Match reviewer operations to decision states
If reviewer invitation and reminders must be tied to configured review workflow stages, pick PeerTrack or Editorial Express. If the editorial process needs round-based linkage between reviewer work and manuscript record changes, pick Scholastica and validate that decision taxonomy precision matches the journal model.
Validate production handoffs against your stage map
If the editorial team wants queue-driven stages that move from decision outcomes into copyediting and proofing, pick eJournalPress. If managed deployment around per-journal configuration reduces platform operations while preserving OJS workflow governance, pick Open Journal Systems Hosting by Ubiquity Press.
Set governance expectations for configuration changes
If admin changes to workflow logic must be controlled with careful role and permissions discipline, shortlist tools that explicitly require governance handling and role configuration. PeerTrack and Scholastica both call out workflow customization and governance setup as an admin discipline requirement, while OpenReview warns that configurable process logic setup needs domain knowledge.
Plan for integration throughput and edge-case bridging
If API depth must support custom automation beyond built-in queues, prioritize Janeway and confirm engineering support for deep workflow customization. If API breadth ties directly to publication-ready page generation, prioritize PubPub and plan for governance setup work and workflow configuration discipline.
Who benefits from these specific journal management approaches
Publisher teams and research organizations benefit when the journal model maps cleanly to configured workflow stages and state changes. OpenReview supports repeatable governance across multiple journals through configurable process steps, while Janeway supports integration-centric automation for editorial events and publishing operations.
Teams running complex multi-round peer review benefit from stateful manuscript tracking that keeps decisions, reviewer activity, and revisions aligned. Scholastica links decisions and revisions to a manuscript record across rounds, while PeerTrack and Editorial Express emphasize reviewer workflows tied to decision states.
Multi-journal publishers standardizing peer review governance
OpenReview supports configurable submission stages, reviewer invitations, and decision logic across journals without rewriting the product workflow. This aligns repeatable governance with configurable process steps that editorial ops can manage consistently.
Publishers that need API-led automation between editorial and production systems
Janeway exposes an API-centric model for editorial events and publishing operations so external systems can react to workflow transitions. PubPub also uses an API surface that connects decisions to publication page generation and metadata synchronization.
Journals with multi-round decisions that require stateful tracking
Scholastica ties manuscript state tracking to reviewer and revision activity across multiple rounds and keeps workflow outcomes linked to the manuscript record. Editorial Express also uses workflow states that support desk reject and revision rounds with reviewer database assignment.
Teams focused on queue-driven throughput from decision to proofs
eJournalPress maps decision outcomes to copyediting and proofing through queue-based editorial stages, which reduces manual status chasing. Its reviewer invitation and reminder workflow also targets consistent throughput across controlled stages.
Common pitfalls that cause workflow drift or operational bottlenecks
Workflow configuration mistakes usually show up as mismatched decision taxonomy, inconsistent reviewer routing, or unmanaged changes to admin logic. OpenReview’s configurable process logic can drift when teams treat workflow setup as a UI task rather than governance logic ownership.
Integration mistakes usually show up when API automation depends on assumptions about event timing and metadata readiness. PubPub and Janeway both tie automation to publishing operations, so inadequate end-to-end validation can create manual bridging for edge cases.
Treating workflow setup as template clicking instead of process logic ownership
OpenReview supports distinct review stages without rewriting the product, but workflow setup requires domain knowledge of configurable process logic. This setup needs clear responsibility for admin changes to prevent configuration drift.
Overestimating reviewer matching depth when reviewer database logic is limited
PubPub flags limited reviewer matching logic relative to systems centered on reviewer databases. If reviewer matching is a core differentiator for selection, prioritize Editorial Express or PeerTrack.
Ignoring end-to-end validation for production configurations that depend on integrations
Janeway warns that complex production configurations can take time to validate end-to-end. PubPub also ties governance and workflow configuration to careful upfront setup, so integration test plans should cover decision-to-page output timing.
Allowing advanced workflow changes without governance controls and role discipline
Scholastica notes that advanced workflow changes need admin governance to avoid drift, and Scholastica io also calls out careful RBAC and workflow configuration discipline for governance setups. Role and permissions design should be finalized before workflow taxonomy changes.
How We Selected and Ranked These Tools
We evaluated OpenReview, Janeway, Scholastica, and eight additional products by scoring workflow features, operational ease, and overall value. We weighted features at 40% because configurable editorial workflow behavior and review coordination affect day-to-day throughput.
We used ease and value at 30% each because editorial teams rely on repeatable configuration instead of constant admin intervention. We credited OpenReview for separating submission stages, reviewer invitations, and decision logic into configurable process steps, which supports governance-driven workflow control across journals.
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.
- Education LearningTop 10 Best Journal Writing Software of 2026
- Arts Creative ExpressionTop 10 Best Journal Software of 2026
- MediaTop 10 Best Journal Publishing Software of 2026
- Education LearningTop 10 Best Journal Editing Services of 2026
- Education LearningTop 10 Best Manuscript Formatting Services of 2026
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→