First release
Editorial control without the spreadsheet.
A complete editorial workspace for assigning editors, inviting reviewers, collecting reviews and sending decisions, with blinding enforced by the system rather than by habit.
Review · Double-blind · Reviewer 2
Our sample covers twelve disciplines. Sampling was stratified by journal age and policy type, then weighted by article volume.
Please explain how the strata were weighted.
Added to §3.2 in the revised file.
What it does
Peer review, in detail.
A complete editorial workspace for assigning editors, inviting reviewers, collecting reviews and sending decisions, with blinding enforced by the system rather than by habit.
- 01
Four review models
Single-blind, double-blind, open and transparent review. Blinding is enforced where data is read, so identities cannot leak through a forgotten field.
- 02
Reviewer database and matching
Search by expertise, language and availability, with conflict-of-interest checks and a record of each reviewer's history and turnaround.
- 03
Invitations that run themselves
Accept and decline links, automatic reminders and escalation timers keep reviews moving without the editorial office chasing.
- 04
Review in the browser
Read the manuscript on screen and pin comments to the exact sentence. Threads are visible to the right people at the right time.
- 05
Configurable review forms
Build questionnaires, scoring and confidential comments to the editor per journal, so every review asks what that journal needs.
- 06
Decisions and revisions
Decision-letter templates, revision rounds and the full history of every version, all in one thread per manuscript.
How it works
Four steps, no hand-offs lost.
- 1
Assign
The editor-in-chief or a handling editor takes the manuscript, or makes a desk decision.
- 2
Invite
Matched reviewers are invited, conflicts are checked and reminders are scheduled.
- 3
Review
Reviewers complete the form and comment inline, under the journal's blinding model.
- 4
Decide
The editor weighs the reviews, sends a decision letter and opens a revision round if needed.
Standalone by design
Works on its own. Better together.
Peer review needs nothing else to be useful. It has its own way in and its own way out, and in the full suite the hand-offs are automatic.
Comes in from
- Manuscripts from DiscoverJ submission
- External intake by upload, API or import from another system
Goes out to
- Decisions, reviews and accepted packages by export, API or webhook
- A direct hand-off to DiscoverJ production
Questions
About peer review.
Can I use DiscoverJ peer review with a different submission system?
Yes. The review module accepts manuscripts from DiscoverJ submission or from outside, through upload, API or import, and can export decisions and accepted packages again.
How is double-blind review enforced?
Blinding is applied by the system wherever data is read, not left to each editor. A reviewer in a double-blind journal never receives author identities, and an identifying-content report flags what to anonymise.
Can reviewers comment directly on the manuscript?
Yes. DiscoverJ is designed for in-browser review, with comments anchored to the exact text and threads whose visibility depends on role.
Early access
Be first in line when DiscoverJ opens.
Join the waitlist to hear as each stage opens, see pricing before anyone else and help shape what we build next.
You are on the list.
Thank you. We will email you as DiscoverJ opens up.