Editorial and Publishing Workflow

Editorial Operations

Editorial and Publishing Workflow

Multidisciplinary Journals (MJ) | e-ISSN 3047-8499

Multidisciplinary Journals (MJ) manages submissions, editorial assessment, peer review, revision, production, publication, and the associated audit trail through Open Journal Systems (OJS), an open-source scholarly publishing platform developed by the Public Knowledge Project. OJS is the journal's authoritative editorial record. Email and messaging services may be used for support or notification, but they do not replace submission, revision, decision, or production records in OJS.

Purpose and policy boundary This page explains the operational sequence from manuscript submission to publication and post-publication record maintenance. It does not redefine reviewer criteria, editorial authority, ethics requirements, author fees, appeals, or corrective actions. Those subjects remain governed by the journal policies linked in Section 4.

1. Workflow at a Glance

1. SubmitOJS submission

2. ScreenTechnical & editorial

3. ReviewIndependent experts

4. DecideEditorial decision

5. ProduceCopyedit & proof

6. PublishMetadata & record

2. Detailed Editorial and Publishing Stages

Submission through OJSThe corresponding author submits the manuscript, authorship information, affiliations, abstract, keywords, references, declarations, and required supplementary files through the journal's official OJS submission page. The author must follow the Author Guidelines and confirm originality, authorship approval, ethical compliance, and the absence of concurrent submission. A submission is considered received only when OJS generates a submission record.

Administrative and Technical ValidationThe editorial office verifies file readability, completeness, article type, metadata, anonymization of the review file, author information, declarations, references, permissions, and basic conformity with the journal template. The office may return an incomplete submission for correction. This validation is an administrative and technical check; it is not peer review and does not determine scholarly acceptance.

Integrity and Preliminary Editorial ScreeningThe Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editor assesses alignment with the Focus and Scope, minimum scholarly contribution, methodological plausibility, reporting quality, readability, ethical documentation, similarity concerns, and readiness for external review. The manuscript may proceed, be returned for essential corrections, be referred for an integrity assessment, or be declined without external review with an appropriate reason. A manuscript described as peer reviewed is not accepted at this stage.

Editor Assignment and Conflict CheckThe Editor-in-Chief assigns a qualified handling or section editor according to disciplinary or methodological expertise and workload. The assigned editor must disclose any competing interest and must recuse themselves when impartial handling cannot reasonably be assured. Reassignment and the reason for a material recusal are documented in the confidential editorial record.

Reviewer Selection and InvitationThe handling editor selects qualified and independent reviewers with relevant subject or methodological expertise. Identity, affiliation, scholarly background, availability, and possible competing interests are considered before or during invitation. Invitations and responses are recorded in OJS. Reviewer selection, independence, masking, and replacement are governed by the journal's Editorial and Peer Review Policy.

Independent External Peer ReviewScholarly manuscripts sent for external review normally receive independent reports from at least two qualified reviewers under the journal's double-anonymized model. Reviewers assess the anonymized manuscript and provide reasoned recommendations through OJS. Reports are advisory; reviewers do not accept or reject manuscripts on behalf of the journal. Detailed reviewer duties and assessment criteria remain in the Peer Review Policy and Reviewer Guidelines.

Editorial Evaluation and DecisionThe handling editor evaluates the manuscript, reviewer reports, methodological and ethical issues, and the quality of the reviewers' reasoning. Recommendations are not counted as votes. When reports materially conflict or are insufficient, the editor may request clarification, obtain an additional independent report, or consult an appropriate adviser. The responsible editor records and communicates a reasoned decision: accept, minor revision, major revision, reject and resubmit as a new manuscript, or reject, as defined by the authoritative Editorial and Peer Review Policy.

Revision and Re-evaluationWhen revision is invited, authors upload through OJS a clean revised manuscript, a marked version when requested, and a point-by-point response. Each material change or reasoned disagreement should be identified clearly. Depending on the extent of revision, the editor may assess the response or return it to the original or additional reviewers. An invitation to revise is not a guarantee of acceptance, and more than one review round may be required.

Final Acceptance and Administrative CompletionAcceptance is issued only after the applicable peer-review and editorial requirements have been satisfied. The editorial office verifies the final files, declarations, permissions, authorship information, affiliations, funding, competing interests, ethical statements, data-availability statement where applicable, and other publication metadata. Any Article Processing Charge or waiver is handled only under the published APC Policy. Payment status must not influence reviewer selection, peer review, or the editorial decision.

CopyeditingThe accepted manuscript is checked for clarity, consistency, grammar, journal style, references, tables, figures, permissions, and metadata without altering the authors' scholarly meaning. Queries are communicated to the corresponding author through the authorized editorial channel. Copyediting is not a new peer-review stage and does not permit unsupported changes to results or conclusions.

Layout and Author ProofThe copyedited manuscript is converted into the journal's publication format. The corresponding author receives a proof to identify production errors, incorrect metadata, or limited factual mistakes. Proofing is not an opportunity for substantial rewriting, new analysis, new authorship claims, or changes that require renewed scientific evaluation. Material late changes require editorial approval and may be referred back for assessment.

Metadata, DOI, and Publication SchedulingBefore publication, authorized staff verify the title, author names and order, affiliations, abstract, keywords, references, funding and competing-interest statements, licensing information, pagination or article identifier, and other structured metadata. A DOI is registered when applicable, and the article is scheduled in accordance with the journal's stated publication frequency. Acceptance does not entitle an author to demand publication in a particular issue unless the journal has confirmed that schedule in writing.

Publication and DisseminationThe final article is published on the MJ website with its bibliographic metadata, full text, DOI where applicable, licensing statement, and issue information. Metadata may be deposited or exposed to Crossref, OAI-PMH harvesters, search services, repositories, and indexing or abstracting databases. Listing or discovery by an external service depends on that service's independent policies and is not guaranteed by publication.

Post-Publication Record MaintenanceAfter publication, credible concerns are assessed under the relevant journal policy. Corrections, expressions of concern, retractions, removals, or metadata amendments are linked transparently to the affected article where applicable. Version and activity records are retained so that the scholarly record is not silently altered. Editorial appeals and formal complaints follow the separate Appeals and Complaints Policy.

3. Decision Authority and Editorial Independence

Reviewers advise; editors decide. Reviewer recommendations inform but do not replace editorial judgment.
Editor-in-Chief oversight. The Editor-in-Chief retains overall responsibility for consistent application of journal standards and may reassign a manuscript when a conflict or procedural concern arises.
Commercial separation. Fees, sponsorship, advertising, institutional pressure, or the author's identity and reputation must not determine reviewer selection or editorial outcomes.
Confidentiality. Unpublished manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, and internal records are shared only with authorized persons for legitimate editorial purposes.
Documented actions. Assignments, invitations, reports, revisions, decisions, and significant procedural actions are recorded in OJS or another authorized confidential record.

4. Relationship with Other Journal Policies

Authoritative Page	Subject Governed by That Page
Editorial and Publishing Workflow	Operational sequence, responsible stage, required hand-off, OJS record, production, publication, and post-publication routing.
Editorial and Peer Review Policy	Editorial authority and independence; review model; reviewer number, selection, anonymity, and confidentiality; assignment and recusal; revision; decision standards; and indicative service targets.
Publication Ethics Policy	Ethical duties of authors, editors, reviewers, staff, and publisher, together with responses to suspected misconduct.
Author Guidelines	Manuscript preparation, article structure, files, metadata, declarations, references, and submission requirements.
Article Processing Charge (APC)	Fee amount, covered services, payment timing and procedure, verification, and financial separation from editorial decisions.
APC Waiver and Refund Policy	Waiver eligibility, request procedure, assessment, confidentiality, refund conditions, and exclusions.
Appeals and Complaints Policy	Valid appeal grounds, formal complaints, evidence, independent handling, escalation, response, and possible outcomes.
Corrections and Errata Policy	Correction of material errors that do not invalidate the article's principal findings, with a linked and dated notice.
Expressions of Concern Policy	Temporary notice when credible concerns remain unresolved and an investigation is incomplete, delayed, or inconclusive.
Retraction Policy	Retraction grounds, investigation, notices, linkage, transparency, and preservation of the published scholarly record.

No duplication rule If a detailed provision on peer review, ethics, fees, appeals, or post-publication action differs from the concise workflow summary on this page, the dedicated policy page governs that subject. The workflow should be updated whenever a material operational change is adopted.

5. Timeframes and Communication

Indicative screening, reviewer, revision, and first-decision targets are maintained on the Editorial and Peer Review Policy page so that the journal does not publish conflicting timelines. These periods are service targets rather than guarantees. Actual processing time may vary with manuscript completeness, disciplinary complexity, reviewer availability, revision quality, ethical or legal questions, and production requirements.

Authors should monitor the OJS dashboard and use the manuscript discussion function for submission-specific correspondence. Material delays, extension requests, corrections to submission metadata, and author responses should be documented in OJS. General inquiries may be sent through the official journal contact page.

6. Editorial Records and Quality Monitoring

To support accountability, quality improvement, and accreditation evidence, the editorial office maintains appropriate confidential records of:

Submission date and completeness check

Editor assignment and conflicts

Reviewer invitations and responses

Review reports and completion dates

Decision letters and revision rounds

Author responses and final files

Copyediting, proof, and approval

Publication metadata and DOI deposit

The journal should periodically compare published service targets with actual OJS data, including time to first decision, review completion, acceptance and rejection outcomes, production time, reviewer participation, publication punctuality, and unresolved editorial cases. Public claims should be corrected when they are not supported by the journal's records.

7. Workflow Integrity and Exceptional Cases

Suspected plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, authorship manipulation, undisclosed competing interests, manipulated peer review, or other misconduct is referred to the Plagiarism and Data Integrity Policy and Publication Ethics Policy; it is not resolved merely by advancing or stopping the routine workflow.
Editors and reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts to public generative-AI systems. Any permitted use of AI tools is governed by the journal's Generative AI Policy and remains subject to human accountability.
A withdrawal request is handled under the Manuscript Withdrawal Policy. Removal of an OJS file or abandonment by an author does not by itself complete a formal withdrawal.
A complaint or valid procedural appeal is handled independently under the Appeals and Complaints Policy and does not create an entitlement to acceptance.
Material post-publication concerns are assessed under the Corrections and Errata, Expressions of Concern, or Retraction policy, as applicable, without silently replacing the published record.