One intake
Authors submit once, into a record the journal owns — not an attachment lost between inboxes and shared drives.
Vol. 01 · Advanced peer review
Rethinking Manuscript Management
This is not another peer review system. Built by researchers, for authors, reviewers, editorial committees, and the press. An advanced peer review system — review, then the article, on one manuscript. Two flows.
Licensed to journals and presses. Authors submit through their journal.
Read each row left to right. The file stays on the same record.
Movement 1 · Submit to decide
Movement 2 · Accept to publish
- 01
Submit
The file arrives complete
- 02
Screen
Checks, then an editor
- 03
Review
Reports on the record
- 04
Decide
Accept, revise, decline
Same record
- 05
Accept
Into production, not email
- 06
Produce
Copyedit and typeset
- 07
Proof
Author and editor rounds
- 08
Publish
Issue, DOI, archive
FasterFlexibleDynamic
The problem
Accept is not the last page
Most software is another review queue that stops at the decision letter. This desk is peer-review innovation: the manuscript continues through review and the issue.
Routing without the chase
Assignment, reminders, and deadlines live on the manuscript. Editors judge the work; the desk does not run on forwarded threads.
A trail you can stand behind
Every version, comment, and decision stays with the file from first submission to the published article.
Who it serves
Built for the desk, not a generic workspace
For the editor, the queue, the production calendar, and the IT review that follows — not an “academic” skin on someone else’s tool.
Editors-in-chief & managing editors
See what is in review, who is late, and what is waiting on a decision — without opening last week’s forwarded thread.
Journal administrators
Intake, invitations, dates, and special issues live on the record. The queue is the work, not a spreadsheet beside it.
Production & press teams
Accepted work arrives as the same manuscript: copyedit, proofs, issue assembly, DOI, archive — not a renamed attachment.
IT & information security
Roles, logs, encryption, and campus SSO you can take to a procurement review. Peer review does not belong in personal inboxes.
Capabilities
What the desk actually needs
Roles, routing, security, metadata. Submission and publication as one piece of work — not two products stapled together.
The right desk for each role
Authors, reviewers, editors, production, and administrators each see what policy allows — and nothing they should not.
Routing that does not chase
Assignment, reminders, and milestones sit on the manuscript. Desk reject to decision, without a second mailbox.
Confidential by default
Encryption, permissions, and a trail that can answer who saw the file — unpublished work is not another inbox.
What the calendar actually shows
Cycle time, bottlenecks, and issue throughput. No archaeology through last year’s spreadsheet.
One title or a press
A single journal, an imprint, or a campus portfolio. Hosted — not a server under someone’s desk.
Metadata that leaves with the article
DOI / Crossref-ready records, repository export, and campus SSO. Further connectors, in onboarding order.
The desk
The work stays on the manuscript
Comments, reports, letters, proofs, issue placement — on the file, not a parallel inbox.
Review that stays on the record
Authors, reviewers, associate editors, editors-in-chief, production, and administrators work in one interface. Reports, confidential notes, and author-facing letters sit on the same manuscript — so the conversation does not fork into email.
- One interface for every role that touches the file
- Reports, confidential notes, and author letters on the same record
- Reply in the desk — not in a parallel thread
- Reminders and escalation without a chasing administrator
Submission and publication, not a handoff
Most systems stop at the decision letter. ManuscriptFlow continues: accepted work moves into production with the same identity, versions, and audit trail — copyedit, proofs, issue placement, and publish.
- One manuscript record from first file to published article
- Production tasks, proof rounds, and issue assembly on the same desk
- Metadata that travels: authors, funders, licenses, DOIs
- Archive and repository export when the issue closes
Confidential work stays confidential
Unpublished files, reviewer names, and decision letters are not another inbox. Encryption, roles, and logs are how a press answers “who saw this?”
- AES-256 at rest and TLS 1.3 in transit
- Campus SSO: Shibboleth, Okta, Azure AD, and LDAP
- Access shaped to GDPR-minded reviews
- A log of who submitted, reviewed, decided, and published
The desk, not the chase
Editors read. The desk remembers.
The repetitive work of a journal should not live in someone’s head — or in a mailbox they dare not close.
A log you can stand behind
Every submission, report, decision, proof, and publication event stays with the file. Permanent, attributable, retrievable.
Dates that belong to someone
Review and production dates, reminders, and issue calendars — with ownership, not a shared hope.
Reviewers, invited with a record
Expertise, load, and conflicts sit in the invitation. The report comes back to the manuscript, not a private inbox.
Who is waiting, and on what
Authors, reviewers, editors, and production see the next step as the file moves — from queue to published article.
Files and memory
Every version of the article it became
A journal is not a document store. Original, revised, accepted, published — one identity.
Version history
Original, revised, accepted, published. Compare, restore, and keep major revisions on the same record.
Find the file
Search manuscripts, reports, and metadata. Filter by status, editor, issue, author, or date.
Leave with a package
PDF and Word with comments, citation-ready metadata, and a publication package for the site or repository.
Compared with legacy systems
An advanced peer review system. More advanced than what you already run — faster, flexible, and dynamic.
| What matters | ManuscriptFlow | Legacy editorial systems |
|---|---|---|
| Generation | Next. Built now, for how journals actually run | Last generation — the systems titles already run |
| What it is not | Another last-generation platform, or the same product with a new skin | One system. Familiar. Not an advanced peer review system |
| What you can see | An advanced peer review system. More advanced than what you already run — faster, flexible, and dynamic | The editorial software the market has used for years |
| What we do not publish | The advanced work. For a founding conversation — not a public feature list | A brochure of last-decade features |
Who it’s for
Built by researchers, for authors, reviewers, editorial committees, and the press
Authors, reviewers, editorial committees, production, journals, and presses — the full desk. If you run a title, write to us. Authors already have a journal — they submit there, not here.
Who we serve
Authors, reviewers, editorial committees, production, journals, societies, and university presses — one title or a portfolio. Institutions license it; authors submit through their journal.
How we work
Onboarding follows your desk, not a generic playbook. Hosted by default; on-premises where a campus requires it.
Questions
Ask the desk
What is ManuscriptFlow?
Not another peer review product. Built by researchers, for authors, reviewers, editorial committees, and the press. An advanced peer review system: review, then publication, on one manuscript record. Licensed to journals and presses. A MIGRI product at manuscriptflow.com.
Who can use ManuscriptFlow?
Journals, societies, presses, and research offices license it. Authors submit through their journal once that journal is on it. There is no individual checkout.
How is this different from the system we already run?
Most titles already run a last-generation editorial system. Those products are already one system — that is not the innovation. ManuscriptFlow is an advanced peer review system. More advanced than what you already run — faster, flexible, and dynamic. We do not publish a feature list here. See compare.
Do you really run submission and publication together?
Yes. That is the product. Screening, reviewer assignment, peer review, and decision live beside copyediting, proofs, issue assembly, and publish — one manuscript the whole way.
How do you handle confidential files and reviews?
Encryption, roles, and a recoverable trail. Formal attestations such as SOC 2 Type II follow as founding partners scale — we will not invent a badge we do not hold.
Will it connect to campus and Crossref?
Campus SSO is designed for Shibboleth, Okta, Azure AD, and LDAP. DOI / Crossref metadata, repositories, and related campus systems can be ordered during onboarding.
Worldwide
English-language journals and presses, in any country
The company is based in Chennai. The product is not. Founding conversations are open to journals, societies, and university presses in North America, the United Kingdom and Ireland, the European Union, Africa, the Gulf, South and Southeast Asia, Australia, and New Zealand.
North America
Society titles and university presses that need campus SSO and Crossref-ready metadata — not a regional lock.
UK, Ireland & Europe
GDPR-minded reviews and presses that cannot keep reviewer names in a shared inbox.
Africa, Gulf, Asia-Pacific
English-medium journals and campus presses that want one record from submission to DOI.
Early access
Write from the desk.
Institutional access for journals, presses, and research offices that want review and publication together. A work email. We reply about timing — not author accounts.
- Write from the journal, press, or research office — not as an individual author.
- A person on the partnership desk reads the request and replies about timing.
- No self-serve checkout, and no personal author accounts.
Encryption and roles
Recoverable audit trail
Dedicated onboarding