Academia - Do we want a canonical question for general journal workflows?

I created the question and an answer as proposed:
What does the typical workflow of a journal look like?

I think that this actual realisation demonstrates that splitting this question would not be beneficial as it does not increase the additional information on alternative names and durations do not diminish the readability and can be easily skipped by readers who are not interested in them.

Please contribute by improving question and answer and in particular by filling the list of alternative names of steps in the journal workflow.

I agree with the comments that there are multiple topics in the proposed question. In this case, I think this is not only fine, but actually desirable.

Because this question will deviate from our general "policies" in a number of ways, that is why having a meta discussion first is helpful. There is nothing wrong with breaking our own rules when we as a group want.

People will always point to exceptions and use it to justify why their question is a good fit. Hopefully we will be able to steer then to meta posts that will explain how things work.