Its advantages are as follows:
* a clear state-of-play record is kept in respect of all materials offered for publication;There are also some downsides. Thus
* this record is conveniently accessible by authors, reviewers, editors and members of the production team on a 24/7 basis and irrespective of their time zone or geographical location;
* no editorial material can become "lost in the system" since it can be tracked wherever it is and the system generates automatic reminders where content stays in the same place for too long.
* the initial uploading of an article requires the person submitting it to register as a user of Manuscript Central, and can be a little fiddly -- with the system occasionally "rejecting" material offered to it by not enabling it to be uploaded;We'd love to hear from users of the system, so we can measure our perceptions against their own experiences. Does Manuscript Central work well? Does it inject a little excitement into authors' or peer reviewers' lives? Do other publishers who use the same system, or indeed other OUP titles, run the system in a better manner than JIPLP does? Do let us know by emailing me here.
* some of the letters and messages generated by the system read as if they have been drafted by machine, and lack the friendly, personal touch (though non-automatically generated correspondence such as letters of acceptance or requests for rewrites can be personalised).