Industry
Industry
Scholarly Communication
Scholarly Communication
Client
Client
Morressier
Morressier
Morressier Journal Manager
Morressier Journal Manager
Modernizing the Peer Review Process and Strengthening Research Integrity
Modernizing the Peer Review Process and Strengthening Research Integrity
Modernizing the Peer Review Process and Strengthening Research Integrity
In 2024, Morressier set out to transform scientific publishing with Journal Manager, a next-generation CMS built to simplify peer review, optimize collaboration, and speed up publication.
I was responsible for taking the platform beyond its MVP, refining client-facing features, and shaping a seamless peer review system for its first official release.
In 2024, Morressier set out to transform scientific publishing with Journal Manager, a next-generation CMS built to simplify peer review, optimize collaboration, and speed up publication.
I was responsible for taking the platform beyond its MVP, refining client-facing features, and shaping a seamless peer review system for its first official release.
Currently peer-review faces efficiency, transparency, and trust challenges
Peer review is the process of evaluating scientific articles and papers to ensure quality and integrity before publication in academic journals. It involves editors and publishers inviting expert researchers to assess submissions. While peer review remains central to academic credibility, the system today is slow and fragmented: there’s little to no automation supporting the workflows, communication happens across disconnected tools, and the process can take months or even years.The Journal Manager workflow centralizes the peer review process, offering a clear overview of submission progress and a structured system for collecting and tracking reviewer feedback.
Peer review is the process of evaluating scientific articles and papers to ensure quality and integrity before publication in academic journals. It involves editors and publishers inviting expert researchers to assess submissions. While peer review remains central to academic credibility, the system today is slow and fragmented: there’s little to no automation supporting the workflows, communication happens across disconnected tools, and the process can take months or even years.The Journal Manager workflow centralizes the peer review process, offering a clear overview of submission progress and a structured system for collecting and tracking reviewer feedback.
Submission Integrity Overview
Before peer review, editors can access a centralized dashboard showing all incoming submissions' integrity status. Each paper is automatically evaluated using AI-powered checks, including:
Text analysis for plagiarism or duplication
Image forensics to detect manipulation
Metadata pattern detection (e.g. suspicious affiliations or submission anomalies)
Cross-referencing with retraction databases
These checks help surface potential ethical issues early, allowing editors to make informed decisions at scale.
Before peer review, editors can access a centralized dashboard showing all incoming submissions' integrity status. Each paper is automatically evaluated using AI-powered checks, including:
Text analysis for plagiarism or duplication
Image forensics to detect manipulation
Metadata pattern detection (e.g. suspicious affiliations or submission anomalies)
Cross-referencing with retraction databases
These checks help surface potential ethical issues early, allowing editors to make informed decisions at scale.
Reviewer Dashboard
The reviewer dashboard helps to manage the workload by organizing reviews into Active and Completed tabs. With detailed filters, contextual overlays, and sortable fields, so Reviewers can quickly locate specific reviews and track progress
The reviewer dashboard helps to manage the workload by organizing reviews into Active and Completed tabs. With detailed filters, contextual overlays, and sortable fields, so Reviewers can quickly locate specific reviews and track progress
Tracking Peer-Review
Every page in the system includes highlights with key information — such as requests, progress, and reviewer recommendations — to support informed publishing decisions within the Journal Manager. These highlights are accessible to both editors and reviewers. For example, editors can view the overall status of the peer-review process as well as track the progress of individual reviews.
Every page in the system includes highlights with key information — such as requests, progress, and reviewer recommendations — to support informed publishing decisions within the Journal Manager. These highlights are accessible to both editors and reviewers. For example, editors can view the overall status of the peer-review process as well as track the progress of individual reviews.
Shaping the feedback process
Editors have full visibility into each review, including reviewer scores, comments, and recommendations. They can moderate and select feedback to be shared with authors, while preserving the original review for internal records. If needed, editors can send reviews back to reviewers for improvement or clarification—helping maintain a transparent and high-quality publishing process.
Editors have full visibility into each review, including reviewer scores, comments, and recommendations. They can moderate and select feedback to be shared with authors, while preserving the original review for internal records. If needed, editors can send reviews back to reviewers for improvement or clarification—helping maintain a transparent and high-quality publishing process.
