IIJRI Strengthens Digital Scholarly Publishing with ScholarJMS Submission, Peer Review and Article Management

These responsibilities become difficult to manage when manuscripts, reviewer reports and decision letters are distributed across personal email accounts, spreadsheets and disconnected file-storage systems.

The Intellecta International Journal of Research and Innovation (IIJRI) has strengthened its digital scholarly publishing infrastructure through ScholarJMS, an integrated journal website, manuscript-submission, editorial-workflow and article-management platform.

For IIJRI, which publishes multidisciplinary research and follows a double-blind peer-review process, a connected digital environment helps coordinate submissions from different subject areas while maintaining consistent editorial records and publication standards.

The platform brings together the journal’s public identity, author information, online submission, manuscript tracking, editorial administration, peer-review coordination, policies, current issue, archives and structured article publishing.

This News & Event article explains how the digital publishing environment supports IIJRI and what universities, scholarly societies and independent publishers should consider when building or upgrading their own journals.

Why Digital Publishing Infrastructure Matters

A journal website is often seen primarily as a public-facing source of information. In scholarly publishing, however, the website is only one part of a larger operational system.

A complete digital journal environment should support the movement of a manuscript through several connected stages:

1. Author preparation.
2. Online submission.
3. Technical verification.
4. Editorial screening.
5. Reviewer selection.
6. Peer review.
7. Editorial decision.
8. Author revision.
9. Final acceptance.
10. Copyediting and production.
11. Article publication.
12. Metadata maintenance and long-term access.

If these stages are managed through unrelated systems, the editorial office may struggle to determine which manuscript version is current, whether reviewers have responded, what decision was communicated or which metadata was approved for publication.

An integrated journal management system creates a structured record around each submission. This improves continuity, accountability and operational efficiency.

Technology does not replace editorial judgement. It creates an organised environment in which editors can exercise that judgement more consistently.

IIJRI as a Multidisciplinary Digital Journal

IIJRI provides a platform for research and innovation across disciplines. Its audience may include researchers, academics, professionals, students, institutions and readers interested in emerging knowledge and practical applications.

A multidisciplinary journal faces particular workflow requirements. Submissions may differ considerably in:

• Research methodology.
• Terminology.
• Ethical requirements.
• Data practices.
• Manuscript structure.
• Reviewer expertise.
• Citation conventions.
• Technical files.
• Practical applications.
• Target readership.

The editorial system must therefore provide consistency without treating every manuscript as identical.

Through its ScholarJMS-powered environment, IIJRI can maintain a common submission and editorial structure while assigning manuscripts to reviewers and editors with suitable disciplinary knowledge.

The system supports the journal’s public and editorial functions in one connected environment, including:

• Journal information.
• Aims and scope.
• Editorial Board details.
• Author guidelines.
• Publication policies.
• Calls for papers.
• Online manuscript submission.
• Manuscript tracking.
• Editorial management.
• Reviewer coordination.
• Issue organisation.
• Article publishing.
• Current-issue presentation.
• Publication archives.
• Reader access.

This connected structure helps reduce fragmentation between the journal’s public promises and its internal editorial operations.

A Clearer Online Submission Experience for Authors

The author’s experience begins before a manuscript is uploaded. Researchers first evaluate whether a journal appears credible, relevant and professionally managed.

They may review:

• The journal’s aims and scope.
• Accepted manuscript types.
• Editorial Board.
• Peer-review process.
• Author guidelines.
• Publication ethics.
• Open-access terms.
• Copyright and licensing.
• Publication charges, if applicable.
• Current issue and archive.
• Contact information.

When these details are clearly presented, authors can make better-informed submission decisions.

Structured Manuscript Submission

ScholarJMS provides a dedicated submission route through which authors can supply their manuscript files and relevant information.

A structured submission process may capture:

• Manuscript title.
• Article type.
• Abstract.
• Keywords.
• Subject area.
• Corresponding-author details.
• Co-author information.
• Institutional affiliations.
• ORCID identifiers where available.
• Main manuscript file.
• Tables and figures.
• Supplementary material.
• Cover letter.
• Funding information.
• Conflict-of-interest declaration.
• Ethical approval details where applicable.
• Author-contribution statement.
• Copyright or licensing confirmation.
• Agreement with journal policies.

Collecting this information at submission helps the editorial office identify missing details before the manuscript proceeds to formal evaluation.

Manuscript Reference and Tracking

A professional online system should associate every submission with a manuscript reference or structured record. This prevents different articles with similar titles from becoming confused and helps editors maintain a traceable history.

Authors can also use the journal’s manuscript-tracking facility to follow the progress of their submissions.

Depending on editorial practice, status information may include:

• Submission received.
• Under initial screening.
• Technical correction requested.
• Under editorial assessment.
• Reviewers invited.
• Under peer review.
• Revision requested.
• Revised manuscript received.
• Editorial decision pending.
• Accepted.
• Rejected.
• In production.
• Published.

Status descriptions should always reflect the real stage of the manuscript. A digital platform is most useful when its records are updated accurately and consistently.

More Organised Initial Editorial Screening

Submission does not mean that a manuscript should move automatically to external peer review.

The editorial office must first determine whether the paper is sufficiently complete and suitable for further consideration.

Initial screening may examine:

• Relevance to IIJRI’s multidisciplinary scope.
• Presence of required files.
• Compliance with basic manuscript instructions.
• Completeness of author information.
• Research originality.
• Clarity of the research question.
• Ethical approval where required.
• Informed consent where relevant.
• Conflict-of-interest disclosure.
• Funding disclosure.
• Similarity or plagiarism concerns.
• Language and presentation quality.
• Suitability for external review.

The result of screening may be:

• Progression to editor assessment.
• A request for technical correction.
• A request for missing documents.
• Transfer to a more suitable subject editor.
• Desk rejection where the manuscript is unsuitable.

An organised screening stage protects reviewer time and gives authors clearer information about what must be corrected.

Supporting IIJRI’s Double-Blind Peer-Review Process

IIJRI follows a double-blind peer-review model. In this approach, the identities of authors and reviewers are normally concealed from one another during the review process.

The objective is to encourage an evaluation based on the scholarly content of the manuscript while reducing the influence of institutional reputation, seniority or personal familiarity.

A digital peer-review environment can support this model, but editorial procedures remain essential.

Manuscript Anonymisation

The editorial office should check whether the review version contains information that could reveal author identity.

Potential identifiers may appear in:

• Author names.
• Affiliations.
• Acknowledgements.
• File properties.
• Self-referencing language.
• Ethics approval details.
• Supplementary files.
• Tracked changes.
• Response letters from earlier stages.

Complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed, particularly within small or specialised fields. However, appropriate file preparation helps the journal apply the chosen review model more consistently.

Reviewer Selection

The quality of peer review depends substantially on reviewer suitability.

Editors should evaluate:

• Subject expertise.
• Methodological knowledge.
• Previous reviewing or research experience.
• Availability.
• Potential conflicts of interest.
• Institutional connections.
• Recent collaboration with authors where known.
• Ability to provide an objective evaluation.

A multidisciplinary journal should avoid assigning a paper solely on the basis of a broad subject label. A manuscript may require expertise in both its disciplinary topic and its chosen methodology.

Reviewer Assignments and Instructions

A structured workflow can help editors manage:

• Reviewer invitations.
• Acceptance or decline of assignments.
• Review deadlines.
• Access to anonymised files.
• Evaluation forms.
• Comments for authors.
• Confidential comments for editors.
• Reviewer recommendations.
• Reminder communication.
• Completed reports.

Reviewer recommendations may include acceptance, minor revision, major revision, resubmission for review or rejection. These recommendations inform the editor, but they do not replace editorial judgement.

Editorial Responsibility

The final decision belongs to the responsible editor.

Editors should assess:

• Whether reviewers addressed the research appropriately.
• Whether comments are specific and constructive.
• Whether recommendations are supported by evidence.
• Whether reviewer requests are reasonable.
• Whether reviews conflict with one another.
• Whether a further specialist opinion is required.
• Whether ethical or integrity concerns have emerged.

An editorial platform can organise reports and decision records, but it cannot determine the scholarly merit of a manuscript independently.

Managing Revisions and Manuscript Versions

Revision is one of the most important stages in scholarly publishing. It is also a common source of confusion when files are managed through ordinary email.

An author may submit:

• A revised manuscript.
• A clean version.
• A tracked-changes version.
• A point-by-point response.
• Updated figures.
• Corrected tables.
• Revised supplementary files.
• Additional declarations.

Without systematic version control, editors and reviewers may open the wrong document or lose the relationship between a reviewer comment and the author’s response.

ScholarJMS provides a structured environment in which revised files and editorial records can remain associated with the manuscript.

A clear revision process should require authors to:

1. Respond to each reviewer or editor comment.
2. Identify where changes were made.
3. Explain respectfully when a recommendation was not followed.
4. Upload the correct manuscript version.
5. Update declarations and supporting files where necessary.
6. Avoid introducing unrelated changes without explanation.

The editor can then decide whether the revision is satisfactory, requires further changes or should return to external review.

Need Help Building or Upgrading a Journal Workflow?

We support universities, scholarly societies, institutions and independent publishers with:

• ScholarJMS journal website setup.
• Online manuscript submission.
• Editorial screening workflows.
• Peer-review configuration.
• Reviewer and revision management.
• Article and issue-publishing structure.
• OJS hosting and technical support.
• OJS-to-ScholarJMS migration.
• ISSN consulting and website-readiness review.
• Crossref DOI workflow support.
• Journal launch and publishing consultation.

WhatsApp: +91 82003 85143
Email: inquiry@ojscloud.com

From Acceptance to Article Production

Acceptance is not the end of the publishing process. An accepted manuscript must be checked and prepared carefully before it becomes part of the scholarly record.

Copyediting

Copyediting may include:

• Language and grammar review.
• Consistency of terminology.
• Heading structure.
• Reference formatting.
• Citation verification.
• Table and figure checking.
• Author-name verification.
• Affiliation formatting.
• Funding information.
• Conflict-of-interest statements.
• Data-availability statements.
• Ethical declarations.
• Copyright and licensing information.

Copyediting should improve clarity and consistency without altering the author’s scholarly meaning.

Typesetting and Proof Review

The article is then prepared in the journal’s publication format. A proof may be provided to authors so they can identify production errors.

Proof review should focus on:

• Author names and affiliations.
• Text omissions.
• Figure and table placement.
• Mathematical expressions.
• Reference presentation.
• Copyright and licence statements.
• Article metadata.
• Typographical errors.

Authors should not normally use proof review to rewrite substantial sections or introduce new findings.

Final Publication Approval

Before release, the journal should confirm that:

• The final files are correct.
• Author names match approved metadata.
• The title and abstract are accurate.
• Publication dates are consistent.
• Volume and issue information is correct.
• The article type is identified.
• Citation information is complete.
• Full-text links work.
• DOI information is accurate where assigned.
• Copyright and licensing details are visible.

A structured production checklist helps prevent small errors from becoming permanent parts of the published record.

Structured Article Publishing

A scholarly article should not be published as an isolated PDF link.

Each article requires a dedicated landing page containing clear bibliographic and descriptive information.

A professional article page may include:

• Article title.
• Author names.
• Affiliations.
• ORCID identifiers where available.
• Corresponding-author information where appropriate.
• Abstract.
• Keywords.
• Article type.
• Volume and issue.
• Publication date.
• Page range or article number.
• DOI where registered.
• Citation format.
• Full-text access.
• Copyright statement.
• Licence information.
• Received, revised and accepted dates.
• Funding disclosure.
• Conflict-of-interest statement.
• Data-availability information.
• References.
• Supplementary files.

This information helps readers understand and cite the article. It also provides structured signals that may support search engines, scholarly discovery services and metadata workflows.

Current Issues and Archives

Journal content should be organised consistently by publication year, volume and issue.

A current-issue page allows readers to identify the latest published content. The archive preserves access to previous issues and supports the continuity of the journal’s publication record.

Consistency is important. Volume numbers, issue numbers, dates, article titles and author names should match across:

• Article landing pages.
• PDF files.
• Issue contents.
• Archive pages.
• Citation information.
• DOI metadata.
• External records.

Why Metadata Quality Matters

Metadata is the structured information describing a journal article. It is essential for citation, discovery, DOI registration and scholarly record management.

Common metadata fields include:

• Journal title.
• Article title.
• Author names.
• Affiliations.
• Abstract.
• Keywords.
• Publication date.
• Volume and issue.
• Page range or article number.
• Article type.
• DOI.
• References.
• Funding information.
• Licence information.

Even small errors can create long-term problems.

A misspelled author name may separate an article from the researcher’s publication record. An incorrect title may be repeated across discovery systems. A DOI linked to the wrong page may prevent readers from accessing the article.

Metadata should therefore be checked as carefully as the published PDF.

Crossref DOI Planning and GetDOI Support

A Digital Object Identifier provides a persistent identifier for a scholarly object. It can support reliable linking and structured citation, but only when the DOI and its metadata are managed correctly.

A responsible DOI workflow requires:

1. An authorised DOI registration route.
2. A DOI prefix.
3. A consistent suffix convention.
4. A live landing page for each object.
5. Complete publication metadata.
6. Metadata deposit with Crossref.
7. Verification that the DOI resolves correctly.
8. Ongoing correction and maintenance.

The DOI should resolve to the article landing page rather than directly to a temporary file. The landing page can then provide metadata, citation information, licensing details and access to available formats.

DOI Metadata Responsibilities

A journal should verify that deposited metadata accurately represents:

• The article title.
• Author names.
• Journal title.
• Publication year and date.
• Volume and issue.
• Article URL.
• References where deposited.
• Funding and licence details where applicable.

If an article title, author name or URL is corrected, the DOI metadata may also need to be updated.

GetDOI can support eligible journals with Crossref DOI sponsorship routes, DOI setup, metadata preparation and registration-workflow guidance.

DOI registration does not mean that a journal is indexed, ranked or formally evaluated. DOI services and indexing databases perform different functions.

ISSN Readiness and OJSCloud Consulting

An ISSN identifies a continuing publication such as a scholarly journal. It does not certify the journal’s quality or guarantee inclusion in any indexing database.

A new journal preparing for an ISSN application should generally establish a clear and consistent publication identity.

Website-readiness considerations may include:

• Final journal title.
• Publisher or institutional ownership.
• Aims and scope.
• Editorial leadership.
• Editorial Board.
• Publication frequency.
• Peer-review process.
• Author guidelines.
• Publication-ethics policies.
• Copyright and licensing.
• Contact information.
• Consistent branding.
• Published or sample content where required by the relevant ISSN centre.

Requirements may vary according to the responsible ISSN authority and jurisdiction. The final decision is made only by the authorised ISSN agency.

OJSCloud can assist journal owners with ISSN consulting, website-readiness assessment, journal launch planning and publishing guidance. This support can help identify incomplete pages, inconsistent journal information and operational gaps before an application is submitted.

No platform or consultant should guarantee ISSN approval.

Research Integrity and Transparent Editorial Records

A journal-management system can support research integrity by preserving records of:

• Original submissions.
• Revised manuscripts.
• Reviewer assignments.
• Reviewer reports.
• Editorial decisions.
• Author responses.
• Ethical declarations.
• Production corrections.
• Publication dates.
• Article metadata.

These records may become important when responding to an appeal, authorship dispute, correction request or research-integrity concern.

However, software alone cannot ensure ethical publishing. The journal must maintain clear policies and apply them consistently.

Relevant policies may address:

• Authorship and contributorship.
• Conflicts of interest.
• Plagiarism and duplicate publication.
• Human and animal research.
• Informed consent.
• Data availability.
• Corrections and retractions.
• Complaints and appeals.
• Reviewer conduct.
• Artificial-intelligence use.
• Editorial independence.
• Copyright and licensing.

Scholar9 and Transparent Peer-Review Options

Traditional confidential peer review remains suitable for many journals, including journals using double-blind review. At the same time, some publishers are exploring more transparent approaches to documenting scholarly evaluation.

Scholar9 supports a transparent peer-review and research-trust ecosystem.

Depending on the journal’s policy and participant consent, a transparent approach may involve:

• Publication of reviewer reports.
• Publication of author responses.
• Recognition of reviewer contributions.
• Documentation that review occurred.
• Identifiers for review-related outputs.
• A more visible research-evaluation record.

Transparency should not be introduced without careful policy development. Journals must specify what information will be published, whether reviewer identities remain confidential and how consent will be obtained.

For IIJRI, any peer-review practice should remain consistent with its stated double-blind model unless the journal formally revises its policy.

Security, Privacy and Role-Based Access

Journal platforms store unpublished manuscripts, author details, reviewer identities, editorial correspondence and decisions. This information requires appropriate protection.

Important safeguards include:

• Secure HTTPS connections.
• Role-based permissions.
• Strong administrative authentication.
• Restricted reviewer access.
• Secure manuscript storage.
• Reliable backups.
• Software maintenance.
• Recovery planning.
• Privacy documentation.
• Controlled access to personal information.
• Protection against spam and malicious uploads.

Authors, reviewers, editors and administrators should see only the information required for their roles.

Double-blind peer review also depends on controlling access to identity information and review files.

Accessibility and Mobile Usability

A digital journal should be usable by researchers working on different devices, networks and assistive technologies.

Important considerations include:

• Mobile-responsive pages.
• Clear navigation.
• Readable typography.
• Suitable colour contrast.
• Descriptive form labels.
• Logical heading structure.
• Keyboard accessibility.
• Alternative text for informative images.
• Accessible documents.
• Simple submission forms.
• Clear error messages.
• Performance on slower internet connections.

Accessibility supports wider participation in scholarly communication. It should be treated as part of journal quality rather than an optional visual improvement.

Search Visibility and Indexing Readiness

A journal should make its content understandable to both human readers and search systems.

Technical and content considerations include:

• Stable article URLs.
• Unique page titles.
• Useful meta descriptions.
• Structured headings.
• Article-level metadata.
• Citation meta tags where supported.
• XML sitemap.
• Internal links.
• Mobile usability.
• HTTPS.
• Accessible full text.
• Consistent author information.
• Clear current-issue and archive pages.
• Canonical URLs where required.

Avoiding Unsupported Indexing Claims

A professional journal should never claim inclusion in a database unless the journal can verify that status directly.

The following are different:

• Formal journal indexing.
• Search-engine visibility.
• DOI registration.
• Metadata deposit.
• Repository inclusion.
• Citation-database coverage.
• Application for evaluation.

Clear and accurate claims protect authors and strengthen trust.

OJS Hosting, Support and Migration

Open Journal Systems is widely used in scholarly publishing. It can support submission, peer review and article publication, but the publisher remains responsible for hosting, configuration, themes, security, backups, upgrades and workflow management.

OJSCloud can assist journals that wish to continue using OJS through:

• Managed OJS hosting.
• Installation and configuration.
• Technical support.
• Version upgrades.
• Theme assistance.
• Security and backup support.
• Journal launch consulting.
• Archive migration.
• Publishing guidance.

OJS-to-ScholarJMS Migration

A journal may consider migrating when its existing website, editorial workflow or technical maintenance no longer meets operational requirements.

Migration should begin with a detailed audit of:

• OJS version.
• Journal configuration.
• Users and roles.
• Submission records.
• Published articles.
• Issue archives.
• Article metadata.
• PDF and supplementary files.
• DOI records.
• URLs.
• Editorial history.
• Custom plugins or integrations.

A responsible migration plan should protect published records and minimise disruption.

Important tasks may include:

1. Creating verified backups.
2. Exporting article metadata.
3. Mapping fields between platforms.
4. Transferring publication files.
5. Preserving DOI destinations.
6. Planning URL redirects.
7. Reviewing user-account requirements.
8. Testing submission and editorial workflows.
9. Checking article pages.
10. Verifying the archive after launch.

Migration is not simply a design change. It is a publishing-record preservation project.

Need a Complete Journal Publishing Solution?

We provide a connected support route for new and established academic journals:

• ScholarJMS for journal websites, online submission, editorial workflows, peer-review management and structured article publishing.
• OJSCloud for OJS hosting, support, migration, journal launch consulting and ISSN-readiness guidance.
• GetDOI for Crossref DOI sponsorship routes, metadata support and DOI workflow guidance.
• Scholar9 for transparent peer-review and research-trust infrastructure.

We can assist with:

• New journal website setup.
• ScholarJMS implementation.
• Online submission configuration.
• Editorial and reviewer workflows.
• OJS-to-ScholarJMS migration.
• OJS technical support.
• ISSN consulting.
• Crossref DOI planning.
• Article metadata structure.
• Issue and archive organisation.
• Journal launch guidance.
• Publishing-policy preparation.

WhatsApp: +91 82003 85143
Email: inquiry@ojscloud.com

What Other Journals Can Learn from IIJRI’s Digital Approach

IIJRI’s ScholarJMS-powered environment demonstrates several important principles for emerging academic journals.

Build an Editorial System, Not Only a Website

The public website should connect with submission, review, editorial management and publication rather than functioning only as an online brochure.

Publish Complete Journal Information

Authors should be able to find the journal’s scope, policies, Editorial Board, author instructions and submission route without unnecessary difficulty.

Keep Every Manuscript Traceable

Submissions, revisions, reviews and decisions should remain associated with a structured manuscript record.

Connect Publication with Metadata

Article pages should present complete bibliographic information rather than offering only downloadable PDFs.

Plan Identifiers Early

ISSN and DOI planning should form part of journal development, but neither should be presented as a substitute for peer-review quality or indexing evaluation.

Preserve Editorial Responsibility

Technology should support editors, not replace their judgement. Editors remain responsible for reviewer selection, decisions and research-integrity responses.

Treat Maintenance as an Ongoing Responsibility

A scholarly journal requires continuing technical, editorial and metadata maintenance after launch.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is ScholarJMS?

ScholarJMS is an integrated journal-management platform supporting professional journal websites, online manuscript submission, editorial workflows, reviewer coordination, manuscript tracking and structured article publication.

How does IIJRI use ScholarJMS?

IIJRI uses a ScholarJMS-powered website to present journal information, receive online manuscripts, support editorial and peer-review processes, publish issues and articles, and maintain its digital journal structure.

Can authors submit manuscripts online to IIJRI?

Yes. Authors can review the journal requirements and use the IIJRI online submission page.

Can authors track their submitted manuscripts?

IIJRI provides a manuscript-tracking facility through which authors can access available status information.

What type of peer review does IIJRI use?

IIJRI follows a double-blind peer-review model in which author and reviewer identities are normally concealed from one another during review.

Does ScholarJMS make editorial decisions automatically?

No. ScholarJMS supports the workflow and preserves records, but editorial decisions remain the responsibility of the journal’s authorised editors.

Is ScholarJMS an alternative to OJS?

ScholarJMS is an integrated journal website and management platform. OJS is an open-source publishing system that requires hosting, configuration, maintenance and technical administration. The suitable option depends on the publisher’s workflow and support requirements.

Can an existing OJS journal migrate to ScholarJMS?

Migration may be possible after auditing the OJS version, articles, issues, metadata, files, users, DOI records and workflow requirements. Backups and post-migration verification are essential.

Does using ScholarJMS guarantee journal indexing?

No. A professional platform can support metadata quality and indexing readiness, but every indexing database applies its own evaluation and selection criteria.

Does a DOI mean that a journal is indexed?

No. A DOI provides a persistent identifier for an article or other scholarly object. Journal indexing is a separate evaluation process.

Can OJSCloud help with ISSN applications?

OJSCloud can provide ISSN consulting and website-readiness guidance. The relevant authorised ISSN agency independently evaluates the application and makes the final decision.

What DOI assistance does GetDOI provide?

GetDOI can support eligible journals with Crossref sponsorship routes, DOI setup, metadata preparation and registration-workflow guidance.

What is transparent peer review?

Transparent peer review makes selected information about the review process available, subject to journal policy and participant consent. It may include reports, author responses or reviewer recognition.

How can a university launch a new academic journal?

A university should define the journal’s scope, governance, policies, Editorial Board, publishing schedule and workflow before implementing a website and submission system. ScholarJMS and OJSCloud can assist with technical setup and launch planning.

How can a journal request ScholarJMS or OJS support?

Journal owners can contact the publishing-support team through WhatsApp at +91 82003 85143 or email inquiry@ojscloud.com.

Conclusion

Digital scholarly publishing requires more than uploading articles to a website. A professional journal must coordinate authors, editors, reviewers, manuscript versions, decisions, production files, metadata, issues and long-term publication records.

By using ScholarJMS, the Intellecta International Journal of Research and Innovation brings its public website, manuscript submission, double-blind peer review, editorial management and article-publishing structure into a connected digital environment.

This approach supports several essential publishing objectives:

• Clearer submission procedures.
• More organised editorial screening.
• Structured reviewer coordination.
• Traceable revisions and decisions.
• Consistent issue and article presentation.
• Better metadata management.
• Accessible current issues and archives.
• Stronger operational continuity.

Technology alone does not establish academic quality. That responsibility remains with the journal’s editors, reviewers, authors and publishing policies. However, reliable infrastructure helps these participants perform their responsibilities more consistently.

Universities, scholarly societies and independent publishers developing a new journal should plan the website, submission workflow, peer review, metadata, identifiers and publication archive as parts of one scholarly system.

For support with ScholarJMS journal setup, online submission, OJS hosting or migration, ISSN consulting, Crossref DOI planning, editorial workflows or journal launch guidance, contact:

WhatsApp: +91 82003 85143
Email: inquiry@ojscloud.com