A journal SOP template is a reusable outline for documenting how a journal carries out a recurring task, such as screening submissions, handling peer review, or preparing an issue. Use it to assign responsibilities, record the steps and checks, and make the process clear enough for trained staff to follow consistently.
What a Journal SOP Covers
SOP means standard operating procedure. In a journal setting, it is a written description of a defined work process—not a journal article format, a research notebook, or a general list of editorial policies. A useful SOP answers practical questions: Who starts the task? What information or materials are needed? What happens next? How is completion checked and recorded? What should staff do when something goes wrong?
The word “journal” can refer to scholarly, professional, or other periodical publications. Their workflows differ, so there is no single official journal SOP that fits every publication. A small publication might document a few editorial steps, while a larger journal may need separate procedures for submission checks, reviewer invitations, decisions, copyediting, production, and corrections. The template should describe the work your team actually performs.
An SOP is also distinct from a policy. A policy sets a rule or principle, such as what kinds of submissions a journal considers. The SOP explains how staff put that policy into practice. For example, a policy might require a conflict-of-interest declaration; an SOP can specify where staff check for it, who follows up when it is missing, and how the result is recorded.
Choose a Process and Set Its Boundaries
Start with one repeatable process rather than trying to write a complete operations manual at once. “Manage manuscripts” is usually too broad for one procedure because it combines several stages and roles. “Check a new submission for required files” is easier to define, observe, and improve.
State what is included and where the procedure begins and ends. For a submission-screening SOP, the starting point might be receipt of a new submission, and the end point might be a documented decision to send it for editorial assessment or return it for missing items. Explain which cases are outside the standard route, such as a submission that needs a specialist review, and point staff to the appropriate policy or escalation contact.
Before drafting, gather the current instructions, forms, records, and handoffs involved. Ask the people who perform the work to describe the actual sequence, including routine exceptions. This helps prevent a common problem: writing an idealized process that does not match the tools, staffing, or decision authority available in practice.
Map the Workflow into Usable Steps
Write steps in the order they happen, using specific verbs and naming the role responsible. “Review the file” is vague; “Editorial coordinator checks that the main document and required declarations are present” gives a reader a clearer action. If a step involves a decision, state what the possible outcomes are and what happens after each one.
A typical editorial workflow may include the following stages, though not every journal uses all of them:
- Receive: Identify the incoming item and confirm that it belongs in this workflow.
- Check: Verify required information or files against a stated checklist.
- Route: Send the item to the person authorized to make the next decision.
- Record: Note the action, date, responsible role, and outcome in the journal’s designated record.
- Close or escalate: Complete the task, notify the relevant person, or refer an exception to a named role.
Include handoffs explicitly. If one person checks files and another makes an editorial decision, say what information the first person passes on and how the second person knows the task is ready. Where timing matters, specify the journal’s own target or the point at which a delay should be raised. Avoid promising a universal turnaround time: appropriate targets depend on the journal’s workload and process.
Define Roles, Records, and Checks
List roles by job function rather than relying only on a person’s name. A named individual may leave or change duties; a role-based instruction can remain useful if responsibilities are reassigned. Identify who performs each action, who has authority to approve a decision, and who covers the task when the usual person is unavailable. Do not imply that an administrative role can make an editorial decision unless that authority has actually been assigned.
Specify which records staff create or update. A record might show that a file check occurred, an invitation was sent, or an exception was referred. The SOP should tell staff what information to capture and where the approved record is kept, without encouraging unnecessary copies of sensitive material. Access, retention, and handling requirements should follow the journal’s established policies and applicable institutional rules.
Checks should confirm the work was done, not merely add paperwork. For instance, a second-person check may be useful for a high-impact production step, but duplicating every routine action can slow the process without improving it. Choose checks that address a real risk, name the checker, and describe what happens when an error is found.
Journal SOP Template
| SOP field | Blank entry |
|---|---|
| Procedure title | |
| SOP ID or reference | |
| Version and effective date | |
| Process owner and approver | |
| Purpose | |
| Scope: start point, end point, exclusions | |
| Roles and responsibilities | |
| Required inputs or materials | |
| Procedure steps, in order | |
| Decision points and exception route | |
| Records created or updated | |
| Quality checks and completion criteria | |
| Related policies or documents | |
| Revision history and next review date |
Fictional Sample: Submission File Check
Sample only—fictional details: A made-up journal called Northbridge Review uses this procedure for checking new submissions. The editorial coordinator confirms that the submission has a main document and the journal’s required declarations. If an item is missing, the coordinator records the gap and sends the author the journal’s standard request for the missing material. If the required items are present, the coordinator records “file check complete” and routes the submission to the handling editor. Questions about an unusual file go to the managing editor rather than being resolved by guesswork.
This example is intentionally brief: it shows a boundary, an assigned role, a check, two outcomes, and an escalation route. A real SOP would also identify the actual record location, relevant instructions, and any approved timing target. It should not include invented requirements merely because another journal uses them.
Review, Approve, and Maintain the SOP
Give the draft to people who do the work and ask them to follow it as a practical walkthrough. Can they tell what to do first? Are terms such as “complete” defined? Does each decision lead to a next step? A short trial or tabletop walkthrough can reveal missing handoffs before the procedure becomes the expected reference.
Use document-control details so staff can tell whether they have the current version. Record a title, identifier if useful, version, effective date, owner, approver, and revision history. Store the approved copy in the location the team is expected to use, and make obsolete versions clearly identifiable so they are not mistaken for current instructions.
Set a review point based on the journal’s needs, and revisit the SOP sooner if the process, responsibilities, policies, or systems change. When revising it, describe what changed and communicate the change to affected staff. A procedure that no one knows has been updated can create inconsistent practice even if the new wording is accurate.
Common Problems and How to Avoid Them
- Writing a policy instead of a procedure: Keep broad principles in the relevant policy and describe the staff actions in the SOP.
- Using unclear instructions: Replace “handle appropriately” with a concrete action, responsible role, and route for unresolved cases.
- Making one document cover everything: Split a large process into linked procedures when different stages have distinct owners or decision points.
- Describing an outdated workflow: Confirm the steps with current staff and check that referenced forms and records still exist.
- Leaving exceptions out: State when to pause and who can decide what happens next; do not ask staff to improvise on sensitive or unusual cases.
- Overloading the document: Keep detailed background and lengthy policy text elsewhere, and link to it clearly.
Another misconception is that an SOP removes editorial judgment. It should standardize repeatable administrative actions and clarify who holds decision authority; it should not turn a context-dependent editorial assessment into a mechanical checklist unless the journal has deliberately defined a rule for that decision. The procedure can make a judgment process more transparent without dictating the judgment itself.
Adapting the Template to Different Journals
For a small journal, a concise procedure with a clear checklist and escalation contact may be enough. A journal with multiple editors, editorial offices, or production stages may need role-specific instructions and separate SOPs linked by consistent names and references. A student or society journal may also need a handover step so incoming staff can learn where records and current procedures are kept.
Adapt the fields to the actual process. For example, a peer-review procedure may need to explain how invitations are tracked and how an overdue response is escalated. A corrections workflow may need to identify who assesses a request and which approved policy governs the decision. Those are different procedures; the template provides structure, not a substitute for the journal’s own editorial rules.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does SOP mean in a journal?
SOP means standard operating procedure. It documents the steps, roles, records, checks, and exception handling for a recurring journal task.
Is a journal SOP the same as an editorial policy?
No. A policy states a rule or principle, while an SOP describes how staff carry out a process under that policy. An SOP can refer to a policy rather than repeat it in full.
How long should a journal SOP be?
There is no universal required length. It should be long enough to guide the task and its common exceptions, but short enough for staff to find and follow the relevant steps.
Who should approve a journal SOP?
The journal should assign approval to someone with authority over the process, such as the relevant editorial or operational lead. The specific approver depends on the journal’s governance and internal responsibilities.
How often should a journal SOP be reviewed?
Set a review schedule that suits the process, and review it earlier when roles, tools, policies, or workflow steps change. Record the review and any revisions so staff can identify the current version.
Can I use one SOP for the entire journal?
Usually, separate procedures are easier to maintain when tasks have different owners, inputs, or decisions. A short overview can link them, while each SOP stays focused on one defined workflow.