Editorial Manager - Frequently Asked Questions

"Thanks! I'm really proud of this one, and I have to say that part of the reason I like doing reviews for Annals so much is the excellent staff, and the ridiculously friendly web-based review system."

David C. Cone, MD
Associate Professor of Emergency Medicine and Public Health
Chief, Division of EMS, Section of Emergency Medicine
Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven CT

"I just wanted to say that EM is an excellent system and from the many postitive comments we have received, that it is by far superior to other systems being used. Just for your information... if we continue to get submissions at our current rate, by the end of the year, we will double our submission rate from previous years."

Betty Schiefelbein,
Managing Editor
Remote Sensing of Environment

"Largely as a result of the success of Editorial Manager, we have significantly decreased the average number of days from manuscript receipt to publication. Most authors and reviewers have become comfortable with EM and, in fact, many like it better than other systems they come across."

Deanna Gunderson,
Managing Editor
American Journal of Kidney Disease

"We have been using it for about 15 months now and really like it. The editor of the journal recently moved to Virginia, but with EM we are able to keep the journal office in Texas without any change to the way we handle manuscripts. Our authors, referees and publisher have all praised the web-based system."

Sarah Pierce-Rubio
Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine

"At any given time our journal has between 80 and 90 live manuscripts, and I seem to be able to handle everything working 12 to 16 hours per week largely because EM does so much for me."

Caroline Verdier,
Managing Editor
Cognitive Science

"I just wanted to say that EM is an excellent system and from the many postitive comments we have received, that it is by far superior to other systems being used. Just for your information...if=we continue to get submissions at our current rate, by the end of the year, we will double our submission rate from previous years."

Betty Schiefelbein ,
Managing Editor
Remote Sensing of Environment

"Editorial Manager offers the right mix of software functionality and configurability. We particularly like the flexibility of the reporting system which will enable us to monitor and track the journals in a detailed and systematic way."

Julie Neason,
Journals Manager
British Psychological Society

"I have just tried the online review process and I congratulate you and the journal for an excellent system! In fact, this is the best I have encountered. I like the related articles feature and the fact that we can add special characters which many journals do not offer. Great job."

Unsolicited Section Editor Comment

"As a leading scientific publisher, Lippincott Williams and Wilkins continues to offer the best solution to our authors and editorial boards. Aries has a solid track record of successful software development, and their Editorial Manager system has proven to be a superior online manuscript submission and tracking solution."

Patti Ward,
Manager of Editorial Solutions
Lippincott Williams and Wilkins

"I have submitted the article via the web system. I found this system to be very easy to understand and use, and also very quick."

Unsolicited Author Comment

"We've been impressed with the pace and reliability of innovation delivered by the Editorial Manager development team."

Harry Verwayen,
Business Development Manager
Kluwer Academic Publishers

"EM has been a delight to use. "

Journal Office Comment

"Our editors are pleased that we've had a 22% increase in submissions compared with 2001, and Web-based access can certainly be credited for playing a role in that increase. Our international authors are especially excited about the product. We've surveyed authors and reviewers and gotten a very positive response to the system overall."

Nancy Medina,
Director
Annals of Emergency Medicine

"We would like to congratulate you and your team on the excellent upgrade."

Journal Office Comment

"I just wanted to send a note of appreciation for the support we are receiving from Amy. She is doing an outstanding job helping us and I sincerely appreciate her efforts. She is prompt, courteous, and so helpful in working out any problems we encounter. I feel very fortunate to have her as my Editorial Manager contact."

Journal Office Comment

"The system has helped cut late reviews to just 16 or 17 per cent....Contributors get a "yes" or a "no" much more quickly, the average time has dropped from 52 business days to 25."

Adrienne Lea,
Director of Publications
Journal of Bone and Mineral Research

"I just wanted to share with you some positive comments about EM that I just received from one of our Section Editors. He called specifically to say that he is very impressed with the reviewer assignment and reporting features."

Journal Office Comment

"I found that sending decision letters via EM is a pleasure. I was able to send nine letters in a half-hour. In the old system, those same letters would have taken two hours. EM has revolutionized the decision letter process."

Journal Office Comment

"I have submitted the article electronically. The system is wonderful."

Unsolicited Author Comment

"One of our Editorial Board members sent this super nice message last week. He also called to say "hats off" to the designers of the system because he liked it so much. I think this message is a great compliment to everyone at Aries."

Journal Office Comment

"I have agreed to review the manuscript but have a question. What is the program that identifies similar articles using MEDLINE? It's very good!"

Unsolicited Reviewer Comment

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: I can't see any difference between competing manuscript submission systems. They all seem to provide the same basic functionality - right?

A: At a superficial level all manuscript submission systems appear to provide the same baseline functionality. However, it is only by looking at the detailed functionality that you can truly assess the appropriateness of a system and the extent to which it will effectively handle your "real world" needs.

For example, all manuscript submission systems allow reviewers to submit reviewer comments. But, upon closer examination, this apparently simple feature is comprised of many additional requirements: Can the reviewer accept or agree to the reviewer invitation on the Web? Can the editor be permitted to modify the reviewer deadline? Can the editor set up multiple reviewer roles (e.g. Biostatistical Reviewers)? Can reviewers be permitted to see other reviewer's comments after the decision letter is sent to the author? Can reviewers be permitted to see the author decision letter? Can reviewers download the author submission as a single PDF, or are they inconvenienced by having to download multiple author submission files? Can the journal office hide some of the submission files from reviewers? Can reviewers download high-resolution versions of author submission files? Can reviewer comments be automatically merged into an author decision letter to be checked by an editor? Can reviewer comments include UNICODE-compliant special characters such as accents and math characters, etc...?

Don't short change your journal by selecting a cheap system that has only superficial functions! Your authors, reviewers and editors will insist on a system that truly provides the feature depth that enhances the peer review process. If you conduct a detailed evaluation, we are convinced that you will join the 475+ journals that are already gaining a publishing advantage by using Editorial Manager.

More FAQs >>