CASE STUDY
How Editorial Central is Making Acceptance Smoother for Authors
Completeness checks automated. Upstream by design. Half the author touch points.
Neelanjan Sinha
VP – Product & Technology
A customer who runs one of STM’s largest production operations has spent years making publishing faster and simpler for authors.
However, some parts of the process were frustrating and inefficient, especially 35–40% of submissions arrived with missing elements, formatting problems, or compliance gaps. Each gap meant staff chasing authors, and authors getting requests after acceptance.
With Editorial Central, we automated these checks and identified gaps while authors were still revising.
What Changed?
How it Worked
- We automated the checks.
Editorial Central’s checks for structural integrity replaced the manual checks. It applied the publisher’s own rules to every manuscript, at any volume, and returned results as structured JSON into existing systems.
- We moved them to where authors already are.
We recommended running the checks at the “Accepted with Minor Corrections” stage, when authors are already revising the manuscript. Flagged fixes reach them alongside their reviewers’ corrections, so everything was handled in one pass.
- We rechecked every resubmission.
Editorial Central confirmed each flagged issue is resolved before the manuscript reaches production. This eliminated the need for anyone to check whether the fixes were done.
Why it Worked
The checks stayed the same, but how and when they run changed. Authors got one request instead of two, and a smoother experience overall. The publisher got consistent quality, whatever the volume. Editors kept the same tools and steps they already used. And production spent less time on rework, with schedules it could plan around.
Want to know how Editorial Central would work on your journals?
Book a demo and we’ll walk you through it.
