Best short answer: choose Scholastica for a clean hosted workflow, Editorial Manager for complex society or publisher operations, Open Journal Systems for low-cost open access publishing, and ScholarOne for large journal portfolios that need mature peer review controls. Open Journal Systems reports use by more than 44,000 journals worldwide, which helps explain why it stays in serious consideration for budget-sensitive academic publishing teams [source: PKP].
TLDR: If a journal receives about 300 manuscripts per year, Scholastica or OJS may be enough if the workflow is simple and staff time is tight. If the same journal grows to 1,500 submissions, or needs complex editor roles, audit trails, reviewer scoring, and publisher-level reporting, Editorial Manager or ScholarOne will usually fit better. For example, a small humanities journal might save money with OJS, while a medical society running 12 journals may prefer Editorial Manager because it handles routing and compliance with less manual chasing.
Quick Comparison
| Platform | Best For | Main Strength | Main Friction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scholastica | Small to mid-size journals | Simple submission and peer review setup | Less suited to very complex publisher workflows |
| Editorial Manager | Societies, publishers, high-volume journals | Deep workflow control | Setup can feel heavy |
| Open Journal Systems | Open access journals and universities | Open source publishing tools | Needs technical care |
| ScholarOne | Large publishers and established journals | Strong peer review infrastructure | Interface can feel dated |
1. Scholastica
Scholastica is often the easiest platform to understand on day one. It covers manuscript submission, editor assignment, peer review, decisions, production handoff, and publishing support. For many independent journals, that is enough.
The interface is clean. Editors do not need weeks of training. Authors can submit without feeling like they are filling out a tax form. That matters more than vendors admit. A confusing submission form can cause incomplete files, support emails, and reviewer delays.
The catch is… Scholastica may feel limited when a publisher needs highly specific rules. Think cascading submissions, multiple editorial boards, custom ethics checks, fee logic, or complex reporting across dozens of titles. It is a strong choice when the journal wants order without a large operations team.
- Best fit: independent journals, law reviews, humanities journals, small societies.
- Watch out for: advanced reporting needs and complex multi-journal workflows.
- Peer review fit: good for standard single blind, double blind, and editor-managed review.
2. Editorial Manager
Editorial Manager, from Aries Systems, is built for serious editorial operations. It supports detailed peer review, role-based permissions, reviewer databases, reporting, transfer workflows, and integrations used by professional publishers. Aries describes it as a system for manuscript submission and peer review management [source: Aries Systems].
This is the platform to consider when a journal has many editors, strict policies, and a high submission count. It can handle layered workflows where an editorial assistant screens a paper, a section editor assigns reviewers, an associate editor recommends a decision, and an editor in chief gives final approval.
Honestly, it feels like some tasks take more clicks than they should. A simple reviewer search can turn into a few extra screens if the setup is not tuned well. Still, the depth is real. For journals with compliance pressure, that depth can be worth the slower feel.
- Best fit: medical journals, STEM publishers, scholarly societies, commercial publishers.
- Watch out for: onboarding time, configuration choices, and staff training.
- Peer review fit: excellent for complex review models and strict editorial controls.
3. Open Journal Systems
Open Journal Systems, usually called OJS, is the practical choice for journals that want control and lower software costs. It is open source and widely used by universities, libraries, and open access publishers. It can manage submissions, peer review, editorial decisions, copyediting, production, and online publishing from one system.
OJS is especially useful when a journal wants to publish articles on the same platform used for submissions. That can reduce tool sprawl. It also supports multilingual journals and common publishing needs such as issue management, metadata, DOI support, and indexing preparation.
The frustrating part is maintenance. Someone has to manage hosting, updates, plugins, backups, and security unless the journal pays for hosted support. Expect to waste time on small technical issues if no one owns the system. A plugin conflict can delay a task that should have taken two minutes.
- Best fit: university journals, library publishing programs, open access journals.
- Watch out for: hosting, upgrades, plugin quality, and technical support.
- Peer review fit: solid for standard review workflows, less polished than premium systems.
4. ScholarOne Manuscripts
ScholarOne Manuscripts, owned by Clarivate, is one of the most established systems in scholarly publishing. It is common among large publishers and journals with long editorial histories. Clarivate positions ScholarOne as software for submission, peer review, and editorial workflows [source: Clarivate].
ScholarOne is strong when journals need structure. It supports editor roles, reviewer invitations, decision letters, reports, and integrations with publishing systems. It also works well for organizations that care about consistent processes across many journals.
The weak spot is the user experience. It can feel old next to newer tools. Authors may need more guidance. Editors may complain about screens that feel crowded. Still, many publishers keep it because it is stable, known, and able to support large editorial programs.
- Best fit: large publishers, established journals, high-volume editorial offices.
- Watch out for: user experience, training needs, and configuration complexity.
- Peer review fit: strong for formal, high-volume, policy-driven review.
How to Choose the Right Platform
Start with submission volume. A journal getting 100 to 500 submissions per year may not need an enterprise system. A clean tool saves staff time. Scholastica or OJS can work well here.
For 1,000 or more submissions per year, the decision changes. Reporting, reviewer tracking, escalation rules, and editor permissions become more important. Editorial Manager and ScholarOne are stronger for that scale.
Next, check your staff model. If editors are volunteers, keep the system simple. If there is a managing editor, production editor, editorial assistant, and publisher admin, a more detailed system may be worth it.
Also ask where publishing happens. If the journal needs submission, review, and article hosting in one place, OJS has a clear appeal. If the journal only needs manuscript tracking before files move to another production system, Scholastica, Editorial Manager, or ScholarOne may fit better.
Final Recommendation
Pick Scholastica if you want a serious but manageable system with less training pain. Pick Editorial Manager if workflow control matters more than simplicity. Pick OJS if budget, open access publishing, and ownership are central. Pick ScholarOne if your journal or publisher needs a proven system for high-volume peer review.
The best platform is not the one with the longest feature list. It is the one your editors, reviewers, and authors can use without constant support. That is where submission speed, review quality, and staff sanity are won or lost.
