A busy review process can leave a committee searching through attachments, wondering who has accepted an assignment and chasing the latest revision. The answer is a clear workflow, with a dependable place for each person to do their part.
Agree the stages first
Outline the route from submission through review, feedback, revisions and decision to final files. Set the requirements and dates before inviting authors. Explain which steps depend on acceptance and when registration is required.
Keep the public instructions short. Authors need to understand what to provide and when, without reading a manual for the committee’s administration.
Make responsibilities visible
Authors need access to their submissions and feedback. Reviewers need a clear list of their assignments. Chairs need the wider view: who is carrying the work, what is outstanding and which decisions are ready.
Rhodex provides dedicated workspaces for these roles. A reviewer’s view focuses on assigned work; the chair can coordinate workloads and follow progress across the review process.
Keep feedback with the submission
When feedback and revised files stay attached to the right submission, the committee spends less time checking whether it has the latest version. Authors have a place to return when action is needed.
Relevant notifications help people notice changes, but the submission record remains the reference point. Agree communication channels and deadlines as part of the setup.
Finish with a clear decision
Your committee makes the academic decisions. The platform supports the process around them, including the route for accepted work towards final requirements.