Understanding expert workflows

A year long research initiative focused on system usability

Key learnings

Editor workflows contained significant redundancy that compounded at scale, with 30 to 40 percent unnecessary clicks in high frequency tasks
Core editorial tasks required navigating 3 to 8 pages or windows, increasing cognitive load and slowing assessments
Workflow structure often conflicted with editor mental models, forcing editors to jump between action links rather than follow a clear assessment flow
Inconsistent UI patterns and decision terminology across journals reduced confidence and slowed decision making
Editors relied on external tools such as Excel, Word, and Google Scholar when system feedback, comparison, or visibility was insufficient

Project Results and Outcomes

Established the first end to end understanding of editor workflows across Editorial Manager
Identified system level opportunities to reduce friction in high volume, expert workflows
Created research backed priorities for workflow simplification, automation, and navigation improvements
Laid the groundwork for modernizing a complex, legacy platform

Product context and problem

Editorial Manager is a 20 plus year old scholarly submission and peer review system with highly customizable and configurable workflows. Over time, and without a dedicated design team, significant design debt accumulated, resulting in fragmented experiences across editorial tasks rather than cohesive end to end journeys.

When I joined as the first design hire, we had completed several workflow focused projects in isolation. Recognizing the need to step back and understand the full editor experience, I led a year long generative research initiative to examine editor roles end to end. This work connected previously isolated insights, surfaced systemic inefficiencies, and established a foundation for modernizing a complex legacy system.

At the time, scholarly journals were experiencing a surge in manuscript submissions, but this increase was not translating into higher quality publications. Editors were increasingly overwhelmed by low quality and out of scope manuscripts while navigating a legacy editorial management system that had not evolved alongside the scale and complexity of their work.

Research Scope and Structure

Scope

This was a year long generative research initiative focused on understanding editor workflows end to end across a diverse user group.

The work included:

40 editors across Editor in Chief, Managing Editor, and Associate Editor roles
A diverse user group spanning multiple journal types, disciplines, and geographies
Core editorial activities including triage, post review assessment, decision work, and reviewer management

This was the first time editor workflows were examined holistically rather than through isolated workflow studies.

Structure

The research was conducted in three phases, aligned to key segments of the editor experience:

Editorial Triage
Initial assessing new submissions and determining next steps
Post Review Assessment and Decision Work
Reviewing reviewer feedback, comparing information, and completing editorial decisions
Reviewer Invitation and Job Switching
Finding, inviting, and managing reviewers while moving between submissions and tasks

Each phase built on prior insights to validate patterns across the full workflow.

Methods

A mixed method approach balanced depth with efficiency:

Semi structured interviews and live task walkthroughs
Contextual inquiry and workflow mapping
Cross site comparisons and targeted usability evaluations

This surfaced both tactical usability issues and systemic workflow breakdowns that only emerged when viewed end to end.

My role

I led the initiative end to end, from research planning and facilitation through synthesis and stakeholder communication.

I partnered with a UX lead for recruitment and research operations, a junior designer for synthesis support, and two product partners from the parent company, including the Director of Product, who helped shape the scope of each phase.

Key Findings by Workflow Phase

Phase 1: Editorial Triage

How editors assess new submissions and decide whether to proceed

What we observed

Editors typically triaged submissions in batches to reduce context switching
Managing Editors handled administrative checks such as formatting, scope, and compliance but lacked efficient tools
Editors opened 3 to 8 separate pages or windows per submission to complete a single assessment
Long, unsorted lists made assigning editors slower than expected
Confirmation steps and redundant actions added unnecessary clicks to otherwise simple decisions

Why it mattered
Early friction compounded quickly at scale, slowing decision making and increasing cognitive load in one of the highest volume parts of the workflow.

Phase 2: Post Review Assessment and Decision Work

How editors review feedback and complete formal manuscript decisions

What we observed

Viewing and comparing reviewer comments required up to 35 clicks per week per editor, over 1,800 clicks annually for a common task
Desk rejections averaged roughly 120 clicks per week in the best case scenario
Editors reported that desk rejection was one of the highest volume decision paths, amplifying the impact of workflow inefficiencies
Decision terminology varied widely across journals, leading to inconsistent editor to author communication
Editors frequently drafted decisions in Word or Excel to manage clarity, reuse language, and reduce errors

Why it mattered
Click heavy and fragmented decision workflows slowed throughput, reduced confidence, and pushed editors to work outside the system for critical tasks.

Phase 3: Reviewer Invitation and Job Switching

How editors find reviewers, manage invitations, and move between editorial tasks

What we observed

Editors navigated 5 to 7 reviewer search options with unclear labels and inconsistent interaction patterns
Editors repeated searches across tabs to verify results, adding unnecessary steps
Assigning roles and customizing invitations required 15 to 25 clicks per reviewer, with no apply to all options
Key actions such as proceeding in the flow were placed far down the page, requiring excessive scrolling
Moving between submissions required returning to the main menu, breaking flow and increasing task switching

Why it mattered
Fragmented navigation and reviewer management workflows disrupted focus in high volume editorial work, increasing reliance on external tools and workarounds.

Systemic Patterns

Across all phases of the editor workflow, several system level patterns consistently emerged:

Redundancy compounded at scale
Small inefficiencies, extra confirmation steps, and repeated actions added up quickly in high volume editorial work.
Workflow structure conflicted with editor mental models
Editors were forced to jump between action links and pages rather than follow a clear, linear assessment and decision flow.
Critical information was fragmented across pages and windows
Editors regularly navigated multiple screens to complete a single task, increasing cognitive load and slowing work.
Inconsistent UI patterns and terminology reduced confidence
Variations across journals and workflows made behavior unpredictable and required additional effort to interpret system state.
Lack of system feedback pushed work outside the platform
Editors relied on spreadsheets, documents, and external tools when the system did not provide enough clarity, comparison, or reassurance.

Roadmap Influence

This research directly informed how Editorial Manager approached future roadmap prioritization:

Established a shared, end to end understanding of editor workflows across product, design, and engineering
Shifted the roadmap from isolated UI fixes to system level improvements focused on workflow clarity, navigation, and efficiency
Created research backed priorities for simplifying high volume tasks, reducing unnecessary clicks, and improving system feedback
Provided a foundation for future redesigns used by thousands of editors across journals and disciplines