It’s pretty impressive, and it seems they’re very actively working on the software. I’m sure they’d be really excited if one upshot of the current debate about publishing was some journals switching to (or new journals starting on) their software. If journals are going to abandon the big commercial publishers, we need to make sure there are viable alternatives; and part of that is ensuring that the basic software for managing manuscripts and referee reports is up to par. Even if we’re not actually ready to move on any particular journals, it seems like it would be pretty useful to try out things like Scholastica, and their ‘competitors’ OJS, Annotum, and EditFlow. Explaining which features are needed to the developers, and being able to explain to editorial boards exactly what is available, will be really helpful.
I created a dummy journal on their site, called “Experiments in Mathematical Publishing“. If anyone would like to play around with the interface, try submitting a paper there. (Submit one of your old arXiv papers, for example!) Their interface has a feedback form, and we can discuss things here or, even better, over at the Math2.0 forum. If you submit something, I’ll ‘assign’ something to you to ‘referee’, for the sake of trying out the whole interface. If anyone would like to be an ‘editor’, just let me know. I’ll eventually delete the journal, of course.