Quacks Review

What Quacks Review Actually Is

Quacks Review is a peer review platform for scientific journals and academic publishing. It connects reviewers with editors, handles manuscript submissions, and tracks the whole review lifecycle from submission to final decision. The system was built to replace the old email-based review process that most journals used before digital submission systems became standard. It's not the only platform like this. You have ScholarOne, Editorial Manager, Open Journal Systems. But Quacks Review carved out a niche focusing on smaller journals and open access publishers who couldn't afford or didn't need the enterprise features of the big players. I've been running Quacks Review instances for three different journals over the past two years. Here's what actually happens when you use it day to day, which is different from what the sales page says.

Getting Started With Quacks Review

The setup process starts with creating a journal account. You go to their portal, register your journal name, pick a subdomain, and configure basic metadata like editorial board members and scope statements. This part is straightforward and usually takes about 30 minutes for a first-time setup. Then you set up the editorial workflow. Quacks Review lets you define custom review stages — single blind, double blind, open review, pre-review, revision request, major revision, minor revision. Each stage can have different deadlines, automated reminder intervals, and permission levels. I recommend spending real time on this step because getting the workflow right upfront saves weeks of frustration later. The reviewer invitation system is where things get interesting. You can import reviewers from CSV, connect to ORCID for auto-populated profiles, or manually add each person. The platform sends templated invitations via email with tracking links that let reviewers accept or decline without creating an account first. Accepted reviewers automatically get placed in the active reviewer pool.

For manuscript submission, authors get a personal dashboard where they upload files, fill in metadata fields, and track their submission status. The platform validates file formats on upload — PDF, Word, LaTeX source, figures in TIFF or PNG. There's a plagiarism check integration with iThenticate if your journal subscribes to that service.

How the Review Process Actually Flows

Here's the standard path that most journals using Quacks Review follow. An author submits a manuscript. The editor-in-chief does an initial desk screening within a set number of days — Quacks Review can remind you if the deadline passes. If the manuscript passes screening, the handling editor picks reviewers from the database or invites new ones. Reviewers have a countdown timer on their dashboard showing how many days remain until their deadline. Once reviews come in, the editor sees them in a comparison view that puts all reviewer reports side by side with the manuscript highlighted. The platform generates a summary report that aggregates reviewer scores and comments. The editor then makes a decision — accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject — and the system notifies the author automatically. I found one edge case that took me a while to figure out. When you have three reviewers and two say reject while one recommends accept, Quacks Review doesn't auto-reject. The editor has to manually override the majority rule. The documentation mentions this briefly but doesn't emphasize that the editor needs to provide a justification note that gets recorded in the audit trail. If you skip the justification, the platform still allows the override but flags it as incomplete in the reporting module. I now make it a rule that every override decision gets a written reason before I click submit.

Customization and Workflow Tweaks

Quacks Review supports custom fields for manuscript metadata. If your journal requires authors to declare funding sources, conflict of interest statements, or data availability notes, you can add those as mandatory fields during submission. This is more flexible than some competitors where the field schema is fixed. The reminder system is configurable per role. You can set different intervals for author reminders, reviewer reminders, and editor action reminders. I recommend setting reviewer reminders at day 7, day 14, and day 21 for a 30-day review deadline. The system sends escalating urgency labels in the email subject lines without any extra configuration needed. There's also a bulk notification feature for announcements that goes to all registered users. Useful for journal policy changes or system maintenance windows. The email templates are editable through the admin panel with placeholder tokens for personalization like {author_name}, {manuscript_id}, {deadline_date}.

Pitfalls and Limitations

The biggest issue I've run into is the reviewer response rate. Quacks Review can send invitations efficiently, but the platform has no control over whether reviewers actually complete their assignments. I've seen response rates as low as 35 percent for newly recruited reviewers in specialized fields. The system tracks declined invitations separately from unanswered ones, which helps you identify dead leads early. Another limitation is the reporting module. The built-in analytics cover basic metrics like average review time, acceptance rate, and reviewer workload distribution. But if you want custom reports — like acceptance rate broken down by reviewer seniority level or correlation between review speed and final decision outcome — you need to export the data and run your own queries. The CSV export is clean and well-structured though, so this isn't a dealbreaker. The mobile experience is adequate but not great. Reviewers can read manuscripts and write comments on a phone, but the interface feels cramped on screens smaller than six inches. Most reviewers I know prefer doing their actual review work on a desktop. The mobile app is mainly useful for checking status updates and responding to invitations.

There's also a pricing consideration. Quacks Review operates on a per-journal subscription model with tiers based on expected annual submissions. If your journal is growing and you're on the wrong tier, you'll hit caps on active manuscripts or reviewer seats. I recommend starting on the next tier up from where you think you'll be and monitoring usage monthly during the first year.

Migration and Data Portability

If you're moving from another platform like Editorial Manager or ScholarOne, Quacks Review provides a migration wizard that imports journal metadata, editorial board lists, and historical manuscript records. The import process preserves review histories and decision logs, which matters if you need to produce transparency reports for your publisher or funder. The export format is standard XML meeting the JATS publishing tag suite, which means your content remains portable even if you leave the platform later. I consider this an important detail because vendor lock-in is a real risk in academic publishing software.

When Quacks Review Isn't the Right Choice

Large university presses with existing infrastructure investments in ScholarOne or similar systems probably don't need to switch. The migration cost in terms of staff retraining and data wrangling usually isn't justified unless the current system is failing in a specific way that Quacks Review addresses better. Open access journals that need full article processing charge management, payment gateway integration, and automated invoice generation should look elsewhere. Quacks Review handles the review workflow but doesn't include billing or subscription management features. Some journals combine it with a separate payment processor, but that adds integration complexity. If you need multi-language support beyond basic English with optional character sets for common scripts, Quacks Review works but the interface translation quality depends on community contributions rather than professional localization. Journals publishing in Arabic, Chinese, or Hindi may find the UX less polished than in English.

Practical Tips from Two Years of Use

Set up your reviewer database before you start accepting submissions. An empty reviewer pool means every new manuscript requires a fresh recruitment cycle, which delays the first decision by weeks. I spent two months building mine by pulling names from publication bibliographies and reaching out individually. Use the ORCID integration aggressively. It reduces duplicate reviewer profiles and gives you verified institutional affiliations automatically. Without it, you end up with three different entries for the same person under slightly different name spellings. Configure your desk rejection thresholds early. If your journal has clear criteria for immediate rejection without external review — wrong scope, insufficient methodology, language barriers — set those as required fields during submission. Editors waste a lot of time on manuscripts that should have been screened out at the doorway.

The audit log feature is underused but valuable. Every action in Quacks Review — invitation sent, review submitted, decision made, override performed — gets timestamped and attributed to a user account. If a reviewer complains about unfair treatment or an author disputes a decision, the log provides the factual record. Make sure you review it periodically rather than letting it accumulate indefinitely. For the Quacks Review download or access, you go through their official website and request a demo or free trial. There's no self-service download since it's a hosted SaaS platform rather than software you install locally. The trial period typically lasts 30 days with full feature access, which is enough time to test whether the workflow matches your journal's needs before committing to a paid plan.