Add quick start guide and new content organization for Curvenote. Introduce installation, project creation, and publishing steps. Enhance navigation with new sections for quick access to common examples and best practices.

Author: jillianlhale

Publish/editorial-process.md

@@ -0,0 +1,101 @@
+---
+title: Publishing Workflow
+short_title: Editorial Process
+---
+
+# Publishing Workflow
+
+## Quick Start
+Navigate the complete publishing workflow from submission to publication, including peer review, revisions, and final acceptance through Curvenote's collaborative platform
+
+## Before You Start
+- Ensure your article is complete and ready for submission
+- Have your author information and affiliations ready
+- Understand the journal's scope and requirements
+- Prepare for the peer review process
+
+## 1. Submit Your Article
+
+Submit your paper by creating a pull request to the journal's repository:
+
+- **Fork the repository** to your GitHub account
+- **Create a new branch** for your submission
+- **Add your manuscript** to the appropriate folder (e.g., `papers`)
+- **Open a pull request** to merge your branch into the main repository
+- **Include all required metadata** (authors, affiliations, abstract, DOIs)
+
+The pull request serves as the primary hub for discussion and review.
+
+## 2. Automated Checks and Preview
+
+Upon submission, automated checks verify your submission:
+
+- **Template compliance** - Ensures adherence to journal formatting
+- **Metadata validation** - Checks for required author information
+- **Reference verification** - Validates DOI inclusion in citations
+- **Preview generation** - Creates a live preview accessible via GitHub comment
+
+Address any failed checks before proceeding to review.
+
+## 3. Editorial Assignment
+
+An editor is assigned to oversee your submission:
+
+- **Scope assessment** - Editor evaluates if your topic fits the journal
+- **Quality review** - Initial evaluation of submission completeness
+- **Process guidance** - Editor explains next steps and timeline
+- **Reviewer selection** - Editor identifies appropriate peer reviewers
+
+## 4. Peer Review Process
+
+Reviewers provide feedback through the GitHub pull request:
+
+- **Expert evaluation** - Subject matter experts assess your work
+- **Public discussion** - All feedback is visible and transparent
+- **Inline comments** - Specific suggestions for improvements
+- **General feedback** - Overall assessment and recommendations
+
+Reviewers are tagged (`@username`) for notifications and communication.
+
+## 5. Author Revisions
+
+Respond to reviewer feedback with revisions:
+
+- **Address comments** - Make changes based on reviewer suggestions
+- **Update pull request** - Add new commits with your revisions
+- **Explain changes** - Provide context for major modifications
+- **Iterate as needed** - Multiple revision cycles may be required
+
+## 6. Final Decision and Acceptance
+
+The editor makes the final decision:
+
+- **Reviewer satisfaction** - All reviewers must approve the final version
+- **Editor approval** - Assigned editor reviews final submission
+- **Merge to main** - Pull request is merged, indicating acceptance
+- **Publication preparation** - Article moves to publication phase
+
+## 7. Publication and Distribution
+
+Your accepted article becomes publicly available:
+
+- **Curvenote publication** - Article is published on the platform
+- **DOI assignment** - Permanent identifier is assigned
+- **Journal listing** - Article appears on the journal's website
+- **Community announcement** - Publication is shared through appropriate channels
+
+## Next Steps
+- Learn about [Managing Authors and Contributors](editor/authors.md)
+- Understand [Export Options](editor/export-pdf.md)
+- Explore [Site Configuration](site-design/layout-and-theme.md)
+- Review [Citation Management](authoring/citations.md)
+
+---
+
+💡 **Tip:** Keep all communication professional and constructive. The transparent review process benefits the entire community by sharing knowledge and improving research quality.
+
+⚡ **Important: Publishing Best Practices**
+- Respond promptly to reviewer comments
+- Be open to constructive criticism
+- Maintain clear communication with editors
+- Follow the journal's specific guidelines and formatting requirements