Log in several times a week to check your dashboard for delays (Figure 11 and Figure 12). The system will email you weekly reports on the progress. You can check the current status in order of urgency at https://www.informingscience.org/Member/Reviews?PublicationEntityID=0&Status=4&OrderBy=Urgency. Two types of papers require your immediate attention:

  • The editor made a decision and entered a decision letter that awaits your approval. The system marks these as Awaiting EiC Decision. You need to either approve or change the decision and the letter to the author.
  • The editor is late in making a decision; that is, the Due Date has passed. If you forget to set the Editor’s Due Date, the system uses the Reviewers’ Due Date.

You may need to remind editors to do their job of rating reviewers and of creating a suitable development letter. In the worst-case scenario, you may need to follow up with an editor with a private email and even take over for a non-performing editor.

The system also lists Submissions on Hold.

We expect some reviews to be late since some reviewers wait until they receive one or two past due reminders before finishing (or even starting) their reviews. We set the reviewer due date early for this reason and ask the Editor not to look at reviews until two weeks after the review due date. That is when we set the Editor’s due date. The system sends reminders to reviewers and editors automatically (a week before, a day before, two days late, a week after the target date, and a week after that). Editors do not receive a copy of such system reminders to reviewers.

For papers that are very late because of a non-responsive editor, the EiC or A/EiC needs to serve as editor for that paper. We have learned in the past that assigning a late paper to a new editor creates worse problems with delays and miscommunications. If you do assign a paper to a new editor, be sure to update the editor's due date for a few weeks hence. You will also need to manually change the editor’s name in the “Assign Editor” template. Do take care to assign it to a productive editor, not a problem editor. Preferably, just take over the paper by clicking Reset and then at the bottom of the screen, click SET EDITOR and Submit (Figure 13). The designated A/EiC and Editor fields for the paper are then blank. You may also need to change the Editor Due Date (and then click Save).

Figure 11. EiC dashboard shows the progress of papers



Figure 12. The Article Reviews tab shows the progress of all papers. Those behind schedule are color-coded.


Figure 13. Reset the Editor when EiC takes over from a non-performing editor

When there are multiple EiCs and AEiCs available for assignment to a paper, the Article Reviews tab shows which A/EiC was designated for each paper as well as who is the Editor. This gives you a better understanding of who has been assigned what (as well as which papers are behind their target dates.) A copy of all correspondence outside of the system should be copied into the paper’s Notes (see Notes Feature and Activity Log).

If necessary, you can change the designated EiC on the Editorial Board page (Figure 14).

Figure 14. Changing the designated EiC

And to keep you on track, you can now see not only what papers are coming due, but also which ones are past due by clicking on Calendar View on the Article Reviews page (Figure 15).

Figure 15. Keeping track of papers in the Calendar View



If there are insufficient reviews and you need to appoint more reviewers, you will need to change the due date for both the reviewers (in two weeks) and the editor (in four weeks) to keep the system happy and to enable it to continue to send reminders to reviewers at the appropriate dates. The system sends a letter to all reviewers advising the new due date. Note that editors are not able to assign reviewers and they can’t change the due dates for the initial review. Once an editor submits a recommendation, however, the system will not allow existing reviewers to submit a review or allow the EiC to add new reviewers.