The Editorial Process of Scholarly Journals: The Long Path from Submission to Publication

Abstract

Introduction: This article examines the editorial process of scholarly journals, focusing on the institutional trajectory from manuscript submission to publication. It is grounded in the observation that editorial decisions and evaluation criteria remain largely opaque to authors—particularly early-career researchers—despite their central role in shaping the circulation and legitimation of scientific knowledge. Materials and methods: The study adopts a qualitative, descriptive, and analytically reflexive approach, drawing on the authors’ experience as journal editors and on systematic engagement with the literature on scholarly publishing, peer review, and Open Science. The analysis is organized according to the successive stages of the editorial workflow commonly adopted by academic journals. Results: The article systematizes the main phases of the editorial process, including journal selection, initial editorial screening (desk review), peer review, editorial mediation of reviewers’ reports, revision processes, and the final stages of editing and publication. It identifies the main reasons for manuscript rejection at different points in the workflow, as well as operational, ethical, and epistemological challenges associated with contemporary publishing practices, particularly in the context of Open Science. Discussion: By rendering editorial criteria, decision-making processes, and underlying dilemmas more visible, the article contributes to improving scholarly writing and publishing practices. The findings provide analytical guidance for both authors and editors, fostering greater transparency, predictability, and quality in scientific communication.