Centralizing Author, Editor, and Reviewer Communication

03 Sep 2026

Communication played an important role throughout the manuscript review process. Authors required clarification during pre-review, while editors and reviewers needed to discuss manuscript-related questions during peer review.

When these discussions took place through emails or external communication channels, information became fragmented and difficult to track.

This created several challenges:

• Manuscript-related discussions were spread across multiple email threads.

• Editorial teams had to switch between the journal system and external communication channels.

• Previous discussions were difficult to locate when clarification was required.

• Communication was not always directly connected to the relevant manuscript.

• Tracking participants and discussion history required additional effort.

• Important context could be lost as manuscripts moved between workflow stages.

A centralized communication mechanism was required to keep manuscript-specific discussions within the editorial workflow.

Kryoni Journal Management System (JMS) addressed these challenges through dedicated Pre-Review Discussion, Peer Review Discussion, and Production Discussion features.

These discussion features kept manuscript-related communication within the system and provided appropriate discussion channels based on the manuscript stage and participant role.

During the pre-review stage, editorial users used Pre-Review Discussion when manuscript-related clarification was required.

Relevant participants, including authors and editorial users, were added to the discussion based on the requirement.

This allowed questions and clarifications to be handled within Kryoni JMS instead of through separate emails. Discussions remained connected to the relevant manuscript, providing better context and communication visibility during pre-review.

During the peer review stage, communication needed to remain structured because authors and reviewers required separate interaction with the editorial team.

Kryoni JMS provided separate discussion sections for these interactions.

Reviewers and editorial users had a dedicated discussion section for review-related questions and clarifications.

Reviewers communicated directly with the editorial team without involving authors in the same discussion. This maintained appropriate communication boundaries while keeping reviewer discussions connected to the manuscript.

Authors and editorial users had a separate discussion section for manuscript-related questions and clarifications during peer review.

Author communication remained separate from reviewer discussions, allowing editorial users to communicate with each participant group independently.

This created a structured peer-review communication model:

• Reviewer ↔ Editorial User

• Author ↔ Editorial User

By separating these discussions, Kryoni JMS maintained role-based communication while giving editorial users better visibility into manuscript-related conversations.

Once the manuscript progressed to production, Production Discussion provided a dedicated space for production-related communication.

Relevant production participants and editorial users used the discussion section to communicate about manuscript-related production queries and clarifications.

Keeping these discussions within Kryoni JMS reduced dependence on external communication channels and maintained continuity as the manuscript moved from editorial processing into production.

Pre-review, peer review, and production discussions remained connected to the relevant manuscript within Kryoni JMS.

This created a centralized communication history across key stages:

Pre-Review Discussion → Peer Review Discussion → Production Discussion

Editorial users could refer to relevant discussions within the manuscript workflow rather than searching across disconnected email conversations.

The discussion features created a more structured and centralized approach to manuscript communication.

Kryoni JMS helped:

• Centralize Manuscript-Related Discussions

• Reduce Dependency on External Email Communication

• Keep Discussions Connected to the Relevant Manuscript

• Maintain Communication History Within the System

• Support Author and Editorial User Communication

• Maintain Separate Reviewer and Editorial User Discussions

• Maintain Separate Author and Editorial User Discussions During Peer Review

• Support Production-Stage Communication

• Maintain Appropriate Role-Based Communication

• Improve Visibility Across Workflow Stages

• Reduce Fragmented Communication Across Multiple Channels

Kryoni JMS centralized manuscript communication across pre-review, peer review, and production while maintaining clear role-based discussions. This reduced fragmented communication, improved traceability, and kept important discussions connected to the relevant manuscript throughout the publishing workflow.