With automation reshaping so many aspects of publishing, I believe the role of experienced peer review support has never been more critical. Technology can help – it can streamline and scale, but it can’t replace editorial judgement, and it can’t earn trust.
Why the People Matter
The teams with deep, consistent experience are the ones keeping systems steady and standards high, especially as submission volumes rise and reviewer fatigue grows.
At PA EDitorial, peer review isn’t something we added on as an extra; it’s the centre of what we do. From our systems to our team structure to the way we work with clients, everything is built around it because it’s where we’re strongest, and where we’re needed most.
Together, we bring over 100 years of peer review experience to the table. That experience spans in-house roles at publishers, hands-on support within editorial offices, consultancy across platforms and workflows, and the long-term management of high-volume journal portfolios. We understand where delays happen. We know what editors need. We identify signs of ethical concerns early and know how to maintain peer review’s smooth operation without compromising clarity or rigour.
Calm and Trust
As peer review volumes grow and editorial workloads intensify, journal teams are also responding to rising concerns around research integrity, shifting access models, and increased pressure for speed, transparency, and trust.
In this environment, consistent, knowledgeable support isn’t just helpful – it’s essential.
While many newer, less specialist services promise speed, few can truly deliver the steadiness and expertise needed to meet the demands of modern publishing. I’ve seen many focus on pace, but few can – or do – offer the calm.
And that’s the word clients use most when they describe us – calm. Not just in our manner, but in the confidence that comes from knowing nothing is being missed, that their journals are in the hands of people who understand the detail, who know the systems, and who can manage complexity without creating more of it.
I’ve seen this come through clearly in recent RFIs. Yes, there’s interest in new tools, but there’s a bigger demand for substance, for lived experience and real editorial fluency. More and more, publishers want to know who’s behind the service, not just what platform it’s built on.
That’s where we make a different kind of case.
We use technology, of course, but we’re not built around it. People lead our model; people who know how to support editors and authors with care and precision. People who can move between systems without losing sight of tone, policy, or trust. That’s why our clients stay.
Our Independence Matters
We don’t have conflicts of interest, and we don’t engage in cross-selling. We’re answerable only to our clients, and I believe that’s precisely how it should be.
In fact, some organisations have told us directly that they can’t work with editorial suppliers who are part of bigger commercial structures. It creates uncertainty. It muddies the line between service and influence. Our independence isn’t just a differentiator; it’s a requirement, and one I deliberately protect.
We’re also not trying to scale at any cost. We hire our excellent team carefully. We train thoroughly, and we maintain the kind of internal continuity that clients tell us is rare to find. That means fewer gaps, better handovers, and a team that remembers your policies, your preferences, your priorities, not just your journal name.
What Sets Us Apart Isn’t Just Our Experience; It’s Our Specialist Awareness and Long-Term Relationships.
It’s the kind that builds up over time: knowing which types of submissions tend to go missing, which reviewer issues need early intervention, and which edge cases – the ones that fall outside the norm – reveal deeper cracks in the workflow. That kind of context isn’t easy to teach, but in our team, it’s second nature.
PA EDitorial isn’t a generic service; it’s a specialist one – shaped by long-term relationships, editorial literacy, and a shared commitment to getting it right.
We don’t overpromise, but we do deliver; quietly, consistently, and with care. That’s why we’re a constant, trusted supplier to major publishers, including Wiley, OUP, T&F and Springer Nature.
If you’re revisiting your peer review model or simply want to know what experienced support really looks like, I’m here to talk.