Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
×
Home
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 1
  • Cited by
    This chapter has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Hartley, James and Cabanac, Guillaume 2017. The delights, discomforts, and downright furies of the manuscript submission process. Learned Publishing, Vol. 30, Issue. 2, p. 167.

    ×
  • Print publication year: 2013
  • Online publication date: March 2013

4 - The production process

Summary

When manuscripts were submitted on paper, mailed in envelopes with postage, and edited with color pencils, production started after a manuscript was accepted for publication, and the term “production” is still used for that stage of manuscript processing. However, with the use of electronic files, the preparation of the manuscript and related figures, datasets, etc., for publication starts long before its acceptance, so that it makes sense to combine discussion of peer-review systems and production processes. As authors are asked to prepare their manuscripts for electronic submission in ways that will make the production process more efficient, we will start our discussion of production with an overview of electronic submission and peer-review systems.

Electronic submission and peer-review systems

With the development of electronic technology for preparing manuscripts, authors went first from mailing typescripts to journal Editorial offices to mailing disks they had prepared using word-processing programs, and then to not using the mail at all when it became possible to attach article and figure files to emails or to send them using file transfer protocol (FTP).

In the late 1990s, web-based submission and peer-review systems were developed (Hames, 2007; Tananbaum and Holmes, 2008) that allowed everyone (journal Editors, reviewers, authors, assistants) involved in peer review to access, from anywhere in the world, a site on the web that allowed them to deal with a manuscript, rather than sending it to someone or waiting to receive it. This saved both time – especially time waiting for manuscripts and reviews to arrive in the mail – and money – specifically in copying, faxing, mailing, and telephone costs. In many cases, savings were realized in staff costs as well, as there was no longer a need for staff to open mail, log in paper submissions, count pages, make copies, mail manuscripts to journal Editors and reviewers, and so on.

Recommend this book

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this book to your organisation's collection.

The Handbook of Journal Publishing
  • Online ISBN: 9781139107860
  • Book DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139107860
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to *
×
References
Anderson, Kent, 2011, QR codes in a journal – printing little computer programs for mobile integrations, Scholarly Kitchen Jan 31 ()
Cox, John, and Cox, Laura, 2008, Scholarly publishing practice 3, Worthing, Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers ()
Crotty, David, 2010, David’s pick for 2010: peer review may be old and imperfect, but it still works, Scholarly Kitchen December 23 ()
Davis, Phil, 2011, When bad science persists on the Internet, Scholarly Kitchen April 13 ()
Hames, Irene, 2007, Peer-review and manuscript management in scientific journals: guidelines for good practice, Oxford, Association of Learned and Professional Publishers/Wiley-Blackwell ()
International Association of Scientific, Technical & Medical Publishers (STM), 2006, Preservation of the objective record of science ()
Johnson, Richard K, and Luther, Judy, 2007, The e-only tipping point for journals: what’s ahead in the print-to-electronic transition zone, Washington, DC, Association of Research Libraries ()
Kelley, Michael, 2012, Potential crisis may be brewing in preservation of e-journals, Library Journal February 23 ()
National Federation of Advanced Information Services (NFAIS), 2009, Best practices for publishing journal articles, Philadelphia, NFAIS ()
National Information Standards Organization (NISO), 2008, Journal article versions (JAV): recommendations of the NISO/ALPSP JAV technical working group, Baltimore, NISO ()
Page, Gillian, Campbell, Robert, and Meadows, Jack, 1997, Journal publishing, Cambridge University Press
Pearce-Moses, Richard, 2005, A glossary of archival and records terminology, Chicago, Society of American Archivists ()
Plutchak, T Scott, 2002, Sands shifting beneath our feet, Journal of the Medical Library Association 90: 161–3 ()
Renner, Rebecca, 2002, News focus: online pioneer winds up lost in cyberspace, Science 297: 1468–9 ()
Richardson, Martin J, 1997, A system for the publication of biomedical journals in multiple formats, Learned Publishing 10: 221–5 ()
Swan, Alma, and Brown, Sheridan, 1999, What authors want, Worthing, Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers ()
Tananbaum, Greg, and Holmes, Lyndon, 2008, The evolution of web-based peer-review systems, Learned Publishing 21: 300–6 ()
Thorn, Sue, Morris, Sally, and Fraser, Ron, 2009, Learned societies and Open Access: key results from surveys of bioscience societies and researchers, Serials 22: 39–48 ()
Ware, Mark, 2005, Online submission and peer review systems, Learned Publishing 18: 245–50 ()
Further reading
Brown, Diane, Stott, Elaine, and Watkinson, Anthony, 2003, Serial publications: guidelines to good practice in publishing printed and electronic journals, 2nd edn, Worthing, Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers ()
Kasdorf, William E, 2003, The Columbia guide to digital publishing, New York, Columbia University Press ()
Ware, Mark, 2005, Online submission and peer review systems: a review of currently available systems and the experiences of authors, referees, editors and publishers, Worthing, Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers ()