Subject areas — the pipeline, end to end

Manager defines the list → author picks on submission → flows to the reviewer’s record on accept → ranks suggested reviewers for the next paper.

One choice to confirm. On the reviewer record below I’ve kept two separate things: the areas a reviewer declared about themselves, and what they’ve actually reviewed (a running count built from accepted papers). The matching uses both. The alternative is to fold accepted-paper subjects straight into their declared list — simpler, but one stray paper then widens their profile permanently. Say which you prefer.

Deferred (kept open): no public “browse by subject” pages yet — subjects work purely behind the scenes. The data model still attaches subjects to articles, so turning those pages on later is a single switch.
Author · submission form Choosing subject areas

Choose the areas that best fit your manuscript (from the journal’s list).

Free text, in your own words. Type a keyword and press Enter.

vertical agreements block exemption Article 101 TFEU +

Two distinct fields. Subject areas are a controlled pick-list the manager maintains (Submissions → Subject areas) — these drive matching. Keywords stay free text for the author’s own terms and for citation metadata. If the manager hasn’t defined any areas, the subject field simply doesn’t appear.

Editor · reviewer record Dr A. Romano

Areas they can review — self-declared

Competition law State aid

Has reviewed in — from accepted papers

Competition law ×4 State aid ×2 Mergers ×1

Why two lists. Notice “Mergers ×1” appears in what they’ve reviewed but not in their declared areas — picked up from a single accepted paper. Kept separate, it informs matching without permanently re-labelling the reviewer as a mergers specialist.

Editor · peer review box Suggested reviewers for “Test 1”

This submission’s subjects: Competition law State aid — reviewers ranked by how well their declared areas and review history overlap.

1
Dr A. Romano
declared Competition law, State aid · reviewed Competition law ×4, State aid ×2
4strong match
2
Prof L. Méndez
declared Competition law · reviewed Competition law ×2
2good match
3
Dr K. Owusu
no declared overlap · reviewed State aid ×1
1weak match
declared area from review history rank

Ranked, not just listed. Today the box shows anyone sharing a single area, unordered. This sorts by combined overlap and surfaces the best fits first — the invite slots you already have sit just below this list.