Authors ask for updates because they have entrusted the journal with work that may affect graduation, promotion, funding or future research. When the only visible status is submitted or under review, silence creates uncertainty. The journal then spends more time answering individual emails while authors become less confident in the process.

The solution is not to reveal reviewer identities or confidential discussion. It is to provide an accurate stage, required action and realistic expectation. The Principles of Transparency and Best Practice state that journals should explain their peer-review process and inform authors when delays occur.

Use statuses that mean something

Build a short status vocabulary around real work: submission received, initial checks, editor assessment, reviewers invited, under review, decision in preparation, revision required, accepted and production. Define each status internally so all editors use it consistently.

Avoid a vague status such as with editor when it can mean three different things. Avoid changing a status merely to make the record look active. Accuracy is more valuable than movement. Add a private internal task where the team needs more detail, but show authors only information that is useful and appropriate.

Pair every stage with an owner

A status without responsibility can remain unchanged indefinitely. Assign one role to the next action: editorial office for completeness checks, handling editor for reviewer selection, reviewer for the report and decision editor for the outcome. Set internal reminders based on realistic capacity.

When a stage exceeds its target, decide whether to act, escalate or communicate. For example, invite additional reviewers, reassign an unavailable editor or tell the author that reviewer recruitment is taking longer than expected. Never promise a decision date that the journal cannot control.

Communicate before the author chases

Send an acknowledgement immediately after submission. Notify authors when their action is required, when a decision is available and when a material delay changes the expected timeline. A brief truthful update is better than silence or a generic assurance that says nothing.

Review the oldest active manuscripts every week. Look for papers with no next task, no owner or no recent activity. Correcting these exceptions will improve the author experience faster than writing longer email templates.

A visible workflow gives editors control and authors reassurance. JournalPro provides author dashboards, manuscript status tracking and organised editorial stages so your team can communicate progress without rebuilding the history from scattered messages.