@@ -82,9 +82,9 @@ Compared to traditional form creation methods which are often complex and time-c
The submission process for journals and other preprints requires capturing metadata - information about the manuscript itself. However, traditional systems often force standardized schemas that lack flexibility.
Kotahi provides versatility by supporting submission through any metadata schemas, including customized or niche standards. This adaptability lets publishers capture optimal metadata for their domain and needs.
Kotahi provides versatility by supporting submission and publication using any metadata schema, including custom schemas or niche standards. This adaptability lets publishers capture optimal metadata for their domain and needs.
Kotahi enables this through its drag-and-drop form builder where any metadata tags can be attached to submission fields. It also supports complex nested data via custom form elements, for capturing detailed author information for example.
Kotahi enables through a number of methods, but largely through its drag-and-drop form builder where any metadata tags can be attached to submission fields. It also supports complex nested data via custom form elements, for capturing detailed author information for example.
For authors, submitting manuscripts is simpler when providing metadata in appropriate domain-specific schemas. For publishers, post-submission overheads are reduced by capturing comprehensive, flexible metadata upfront.
...
...
@@ -96,13 +96,14 @@ By empowering customized metadata capture, Kotahi ensures journals and publisher
The peer review process is a crucial element of scholarly publishing. However, traditional systems often enforce a rigid, one-size-fits-all approach.
In contrast, Kotahi provides flexibility to tailor the review process to each journal or review community's specific needs. Different models like open, blind, or double-blind reviews can be configured. Reviewers can collaborate on shared reviews or provide individual feedback.
In contrast, Kotahi provides flexibility to tailor the review process to each journal or review community's specific needs. Different models like open, blind, or double-blind reviews can be configured. Reviewers can also collaborate on shared reviews while also providing individual feedback if desired.
Kotahi enables customizing the level of author participation as well. Review workflows can allow authors to respond to reviewer comments via threaded discussions as required. Annotations (threaded comments) directly on manuscripts is also supported. The goal is facilitating constructive exchanges to improve the manuscript.
Kotahi enables customizing the level of author participation as well. Review workflows can allow authors to respond to reviewer comments via threaded discussions if desired. Annotations (threaded comments) directly on manuscripts is also supported.
Whether the preference is for a relaxed open review or a strict double-blind process, Kotahi can accommodate it. Custom reviewer selection criteria, revision policies, feedback tools, and more can be incorporated.
Kotahi aims to facilitate constructive conversations between authors and reviewers to improve manuscripts. As peer review evolves towards more collaborative exchange, Kotahi provides built-in tools ready to enable
this emerging review model.
By supporting tailored review workflows rather than mandated rigid processes, Kotahi ensures each manuscript gets the peer review model best suited for its unique needs. This flexibility and customizability result in higher quality, more meaningful reviews.
By supporting tailored review workflows Kotahi ensures you can design the peer review model best suited for your needs. This flexibility and customizability result in higher quality, more meaningful reviews.
