Review Workflows

Overview

Review workflows add an editorial approval step to the content publishing process: an author submits a post for review, a reviewer approves or rejects it, and approved posts go on to be published. It is a process your team follows, not a mode the platform enforces — see Availability below.

Availability

There is no setting to turn reviews on or off. The review workflow is always available on every blog — no toggle exists in the blog settings, and none is needed. It is a process your team opts into, not a mode you enable:

• An Author submits a post for review instead of leaving it as a Draft.
• A Reviewer approves or rejects it.

Because it is not enforced by a setting, the workflow does not prevent anyone from publishing directly. Publishing requires the Editor role, and anyone holding Editor or above (Editor, Reviewer, Admin) can publish a post at any time whether or not it went through review. If you want every post reviewed, keep contributors at the Author role — Authors cannot publish — and make review the team's agreed route to publication.

The Review Process

Step 1: Submit for Review

When an Author finishes writing a post, they click Submit for Review instead of Publish. The post's status changes from Draft to InReview.

Step 2: Reviewer Assignment

Admins or Editors can assign specific reviewers to a post. Assigned reviewers receive a notification and can see the post in their review queue. Any user with the Reviewer or Admin role can also review unassigned posts.

Step 3: Review

Reviewers read the post and provide feedback:

• Review comments — Add inline feedback and suggestions for the author
• Approve — Mark the post as approved for publication
• Request changes — Send the post back to the author with comments

Step 4: Revision (if needed)

If changes are requested, the post returns to Draft status. The author can see the reviewer's comments, make the requested changes, and resubmit for review.

Step 5: Publication

Once approved, the post can be:

• Published immediately by an Editor or Admin
• Scheduled for future publication
• Held in approved state until the right time

Roles in the Review Workflow

Blog roles are hierarchical, so each row inherits everything above it:

Submitting for review requires Author, listing and requesting reviews requires Editor, approving or rejecting requires Reviewer, and publishing requires Editor.

There is therefore no separation between approving and publishing: because Reviewer sits above Editor in the role hierarchy, a Reviewer inherits the Editor's publish right and can approve a post and publish it themselves. If you want those two steps in different hands, that has to be a team convention — the roles do not enforce it.

Review Comments

Review comments allow structured feedback on a post:

• Reviewers can add comments with specific feedback
• Authors can see all review comments when revising
• Comments persist through revision cycles, creating a history of editorial feedback
• Comments are internal and never visible to public readers

Best Practices

• Assign specific reviewers for domain expertise — technical posts should be reviewed by technical team members
• Set clear review criteria so reviewers know what to check (accuracy, tone, formatting, SEO)
• Keep review cycles short — aim to review within 24-48 hours to maintain publishing momentum
• Use review comments constructively — provide specific, actionable feedback rather than vague suggestions

Skipping the Review Step

Nothing obliges a post to go through review. Anyone with Editor or above can publish a draft directly, which suits smaller teams or blogs where speed matters more than editorial oversight. Authors are the exception — they cannot publish, so on a blog where the contributors are Authors, submitting for review is their only route to publication.