As submission volumes and author expectations rise, journals are seeking more efficient and flexible solutions for manuscript submission and peer review systems (SPRSs). This article explores how applying systems thinking to SPRSs can revolutionize a fundamental part of the publishing workflow, addressing current challenges and paving the way for a more adaptive future.
Introducing Systems Thinking
Systems thinking is a holistic approach to understanding and managing complex systems by focusing on the interconnections and relationships between the various components within a system. It emphasizes the importance of considering the entire system, rather than just its individual parts, to identify patterns, feedback loops, and emergent behaviors that can impact the overall performance and outcomes of the system. Developed in the mid-20th century,[1] systems thinking has its roots in diverse fields such as biology, cybernetics, and organizational theory.
Applying Systems Thinking to Technology
In the context of technology, systems thinking is particularly relevant as it helps organizations navigate the complex web of interrelated components, platforms, and services that make up modern technology ecosystems. By adopting a systems thinking mindset, organizations can better understand how different technologies interact, identify potential bottlenecks or points of failure, and design more resilient and flexible systems.
A core concept of systems thinking is breaking down complex processes into their fundamental components. This allows us to understand how these components interact and influence each other. It’s not just about listing steps but analyzing the web of relationships between them. As Edward Crawley, Ford Professor of Engineering and Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics at MIT, explains, “system thinking is simply thinking about something as a system: the existence of entities – the parts, the chunks, the pieces – and the relationships between them.”[2]
There are two primary types of systems in technology:
Monolithic Systems
These are single, unified systems where all components are tightly integrated. They offer simplicity and cohesiveness, making them easier to manage but potentially less flexible. These systems are often colloquially and pejoratively referred to as “jack of all trades, master of none” due to their attempt to handle a wide range of functionalities within a single, unified platform.
While this approach can provide a streamlined, all-in-one solution, it may compromise the depth and quality of individual features and limit the system’s ability to adapt to changing needs or integrate with other tools.
Interconnected Systems
These consist of multiple, independent components that communicate with each other through APIs (application programming interfaces). APIs act as a set of rules and protocols that define how different software components should interact, enabling seamless communication and data exchange between them. By leveraging APIs, interconnected systems offer greater scalability, flexibility, and resilience compared to monolithic systems. This approach is sometimes referred to as modular architecture or service-oriented architecture.
An example is Netflix’s microservices architecture, where different services like user profiles, recommendations, and streaming work together but can be managed and scaled independently. Amazon also famously deployed service-oriented architecture across company (if you have not read Steve Yegge’s 2011 classic “Google Platforms Rant” on the topic, it is worth a read). In both cases, every service exposes its own API, allowing other services to request and receive data as needed. Importantly, APIs also facilitate the integration of third-party tools and services, further enhancing the system’s functionality and flexibility.
While interconnected systems offer numerous advantages, they also come with their own set of considerations. The management and troubleshooting of these systems can be more complex, potentially requiring specialized skills and tools. Maintaining a consistent user experience across different components may present challenges, and initial development costs could be higher compared to monolithic systems.
However, it’s important to note that organizations often address these challenges by clearly defining their central anchor system or systems. This approach involves having a core system to which other systems plug in, providing a balance between the flexibility of interconnected systems and the simplicity of a more centralized structure. This strategy helps mitigate some of the complexity while still leveraging the benefits of specialized, interconnected components.
Benefits of Systems Thinking and Best-of-Breed Tech
Breaking down monolithic systems into smaller, more manageable components is a key benefit of applying systems thinking to technology. This modular approach enables organizations to embrace best-of-breed technologies, where they can select and integrate the most suitable tools or platforms for each specific function or component of the system.
Best-of-breed tech[3] refers to the practice of choosing the best tool or platform for a particular job, rather than settling for a one-size-fits-all solution. Businesses adopt this approach to customize and optimize their technology stack, ensuring that each function is supported by the most suitable and effective software available. By decomposing (or atomizing) complex systems into their constituent parts, organizations can more easily identify the specific requirements and challenges of each component, and then select the best available technology to address those needs.
This trend toward best-of-breed tech has been particularly evident in recent years, with marketing technology (MarTech) serving as a prime example. Traditionally, the marketing technology landscape was dominated by a few large, monolithic systems that aimed to provide comprehensive, end-to-end solutions for managing entire marketing workflows. However, as the needs of organizations have evolved and new technologies have emerged, we’ve seen a proliferation of specialized tools and platforms that focus on specific aspects of the marketing workflow. This shift has been so dramatic that the MarTech landscape now includes over 14,000 tools, with many designed to excel at specific functions within the marketing process.
This shift toward best-of-breed tech offers several advantages.
- First, it allows organizations to select the tools that are most closely aligned with their specific needs and workflows, rather than being constrained by the limitations of a one-size-fits-all system. This can lead to improved efficiency, quality, and user experience at each stage of the process.
- Second, the modular approach enabled by best-of-breed tech makes it easier for organizations to adapt to changing requirements and to incorporate new technologies as they become available. As needs evolve or as new tools emerge that offer improved functionality or efficiency, organizations can more easily integrate these changes into their existing systems, without having to overhaul the entire workflow.
- Finally, the interoperability and data exchange capabilities offered by many of these best-of-breed tools are crucial for creating more seamless and integrated workflows. By leveraging open APIs and standardized data formats, organizations can ensure that data can flow freely between different stages of the process, reducing manual intervention, minimizing errors, and ultimately improving overall efficiency.
It is important to remember that best-of-breed does not have to mean overwhelming complexity. Often, a central anchor technology (or technologies) acts as the system’s core. For example, many organizations have data platforms as the core “data spine” of their connected stacks. This core is then complemented by carefully chosen best-of-breed solutions for specific functions. This approach balances the power of specialization with the need for a manageable and cohesive overall system. The choice of the core technology is just as crucial as the selection of the complementary components that provide additional functionality.
Changing Landscape of SPRSs
Submission and peer review systems (SPRSs), facilitate the process of author submission, peer review, and editorial decision-making around research articles. ScholarOne, Aries, and eJournalPress are the most notable examples and each has been in use for decades. These systems would be categorized as monolithic solutions that aim to cover the editorial workflow from submission to accepted manuscript. (Some also have production module add-ons, with various levels of adoption.) While there is an appreciation for the power of these systems, and the specific and very complex workflows they address, their lack of a modular and API-first approach is increasingly a limitation.
The demands on these tools have intensified due to several factors:
- Increased article volume: Open access (OA) models depend on handling a higher volume of submissions and associated workflows efficiently.
- Enhanced author experience: Authors are demanding faster, more user-friendly processes. In addition, authors expect personalized communications – more like the communications they receive outside the scholarly communications world.
- New challenges: Issues such as research fraud have introduced additional needs (such an integrations with research integrity tools) into the workflow.
- Advanced marketing capability: Publishers are increasingly investing in advanced marketing tools to better target and engage authors, reviewers, and guest editors. To maximize these tools’ effectiveness, there’s a growing need to leverage the wealth of data stored in SPRSs.
To help address these challenges, the SPRS landscape has undergone a significant transformation in recent years, with the emergence of newer players and specialized tools that offer more modular and flexible approaches to managing the author and manuscript lifecycle. These newer entrants, such as ChronosHub, Eworkflow, Morressier’s Journal Manager, River Valley’s ReView, and Wiley’s Research Exchange, are aiming to disrupt the market by focusing on specific aspects of the workflow or by offering a fresh take on what it means to be part of the submission and peer review technology ecosystem.
Journals now recognize that choosing the right tools can provide a competitive edge, leading to more rigorous technology evaluations often involving formal requests for information (RFIs) and requests for proposals (RFPs). Simultaneously, there’s a growing movement toward applying systems thinking principles to these evaluation processes. Rather than seeking a single, all-encompassing system, publishers are increasingly seeking help to devise a “best of breed” strategy – integrating multiple specialized, well-connected systems to create a more flexible and efficient workflow.
Applying Systems Thinking to Submission and Peer Review Systems
Applying systems thinking to submission and peer review systems (SPRSs) involves breaking down the workflow into its constituent parts, analyzing the relationships and interactions between those parts, and designing a modular and flexible ecosystem that leverages the strengths of each component.
To illustrate systems thinking in SPRSs, we share three examples. We have purposely chosen areas that can be significantly enhanced without disrupting core editorial workflows: email communications, research integrity processes, and data management. We recognize that changes to editorial processes are complex and often face the most resistance, so these examples demonstrate how substantial improvements can be made without upending established practices. Systems thinking is as much about identifying what should remain unchanged as it is about determining what to modify.
Email remains a crucial communication channel in scholarly publishing, with countless messages sent throughout the manuscript lifecycle. While many of these messages are basic alerts, there is an opportunity to make many of them more engaging and personalized. These are high-value communication touchpoints. In addition, publishers often spend more time than is ideal managing emails due to the limited capabilities of SPRS’s email functionality. Even something as simple as emphasizing a particular point in an email visually can be challenging in these systems.
In contrast, email service providers (ESPs), designed for email marketing and transactional emails, offer functionalities that far exceed those of traditional SPRS. These advanced capabilities can significantly enhance communication throughout the editorial lifecycle. There are too many benefits to enumerate here, but we highlight a few of the more important ones:
- Dynamic Content and Personalization: Automatically populate emails with real-time data from the SPRS and tailor content to individual recipients based on their role, submission history, or preferences.
- Global Content Blocks: Make changes to source copy once and have that new source copy propagate across numerous emails simultaneously, ensuring consistency and reducing manual work.
- A/B Testing and Advanced Analytics: Conduct split tests on email elements and track key metrics to optimize engagement and inform future communication strategies.
- Automation and Multichannel Integration: Set up triggered email sequences based on specific events or milestones in the submission process, creating smart reminders for reviewers or authors. Consider integrating SMS notifications and web-based messaging to provide additional touchpoints and streamline communication with stakeholders.
It’s important to note that SPRSs, given their broad focus on managing the entire submission and review process, cannot keep pace with the rapid innovation occurring in specialized email technologies. ESPs, with their singular focus on email communication, are continually pushing the boundaries of what’s possible in digital messaging.
While integrating your SPRS with an ESP is crucial for automating and streamlining communication, it is important to recognize that not all ESPs are the same, as each offers different capabilities, features, and integrations. These differences significantly impact the effectiveness of your email communication, making robust evaluations essential for selecting the most suitable ESP for your specific needs.
Research Integrity
Research integrity tools integrated into the manuscript submission and peer review workflow are crucial for ensuring the quality and trustworthiness of the science we publish. Categories of research integrity tools include plagiarism detection, image manipulation detection, paper mill detection, AI detection, authorship contribution transparency, and conflict of interest and disclosure management (and more). This is an active space for development, and there are more options for these tools released regularly.
Journals are actively testing such tools, with the expectation that their tool of choice can be plugged into their submission and peer review workflow. And if a better tool comes along tomorrow, they expect to integrate and trial it too. It is only a matter of time before formal selection processes like RFIs and RFPs become commonplace for selection of best-in-class research integrity tools. SPRSs that can easily integrate a variety of research integrity tools and exchange data with them will be able to differentiate from less modular solutions.
Data
Modern SPRSs must enable seamless data flow between themselves and other tools, recognizing their role as integral components of a larger ecosystem rather than an isolated solution.
SPRSs hold valuable data, including:
- Author Demographics and Preferences: SPRSs capture author-provided information such as their research interests, preferred areas of expertise, and communication preferences.
- Validated Identity: Authors create verified accounts. Connections to external identification sources (e.g., ORCID) are often supported.
- Institutional Affiliations: SPRSs maintain data on authors’ institutional relationships and those of their coauthors, providing insights into collaboration networks and institutional performance.
- Behavioral and Transactional Data: SPRSs track and store data on various stages of the submission and peer review process.
- Content Intelligence: By applying natural language processing (NLP) techniques to submitted manuscripts, SPRSs can extract valuable insights such as research trends, emerging topics, and interdisciplinary connections.
This data should be integrated into an organization’s customer data platform and centralized data and analytics platforms. Once there, it can be deployed for:
- Advanced analytics to improve editorial and content strategies.
- Sightline into opportunities to improve the author experience.
- Matching reviewers with appropriate expertise to submitted papers.
- Developing targeted and personalized marketing approaches – to benefit journals but also to support other organizational products and services (e.g., meetings or professional development).
On the flip side, integrating external data sources into the SPRS can significantly enhance the author experience. For example, pulling in external data enables author forms to be prepopulated and allows returning authors to be recognized (e.g., “Thank you for publishing with us again”).
Conclusion
As scholarly publishing evolves, organizations adopting systems thinking principles are better positioned to adapt and thrive. This approach addresses growing industry demands while providing a framework for innovation.
To fully realize the benefits of systems thinking, technology providers must build more adaptable and efficient ecosystems and ensure their platforms have robust APIs. These APIs enable efficient data flow between systems, creating more integrated workflows, and act as the connective tissue in the publishing ecosystem. API capability is becoming a core differentiator among SPRSs, reflecting the growing importance of interconnectivity in scholarly publishing.
To move in the systems thinking direction, we recommend two key actions for journal publishers:
- Evaluate your current systems and workflows through a systems thinking lens, identifying areas where more specialized, interconnected solutions could bring improvements.
- Thoroughly assess the tools available in the market, understanding their differences and determining which ones are best suited for a systems thinking approach. This evaluation is best conducted through a formal RFI or RFP process, which allows for a comprehensive comparison of capabilities, integration potential, and overall fit with your ecosystem. This evaluation should look at both best-of-breed solutions as well as the core or anchor solution(s) in your SSRP stack.
C&E can help guide you through this process. Our expertise in systems thinking and deep understanding of the scholarly publishing landscape and SPRSs (as well as other publishing platforms) and marketing technology position us to assist you in navigating this transition, ensuring that your systems evolve to meet the changing needs of all members of your community (e.g., members, readers, authors, reviewers) as well as your organization.
[1] A Brief History of Systems Thinking (systemsthinkingalliance.org)
[2] Ask an MIT Professor: What is system thinking and why is it important? MIT Open Learning October 3, 2022 [Medium]
