updated links and fixed rst link

docs/editing.md

@@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ Editors can flag submissions of questionable scope using the command `@editorial
 The TEiC assigns an editor (or a volunteering editor self-assigns) with the command `@editorialbot assign @username as editor` in a comment.
 
 ```eval_rst
-.. note:: Please check in on the [dashboard](https://joss.theoj.org/dashboard/incoming) semi-regularly to see which papers are currently without an editor, and if possible, volunteer to edit papers that look to be in your domain. If you choose to be an editor in the issue thread type the command ``@editorialbot assign @yourhandle as editor`` or simply ``@editorialbot assign me as editor``
+.. note:: Please check in on the `dashboard <https://joss.theoj.org/dashboard/incoming>`_ semi-regularly to see which papers are currently without an editor, and if possible, volunteer to edit papers that look to be in your domain. If you choose to be an editor in the issue thread type the command ``@editorialbot assign @yourhandle as editor`` or simply ``@editorialbot assign me as editor``
 ```
 
 ### How papers are assigned to editors
@@ -35,11 +35,11 @@ By default, unless an editor volunteers, the Track Editor-in-chief (TEiC) on dut
 
 In most cases, the TEiC will ask one or more editors to edit a submission (e.g. `@editor1, @editor 2 - would one of you be willing to edit this submission for JOSS`). If the editor doesn't respond within ~3 working days, the TEiC may assign the paper to the editor regardless.
 
-Editors may also be invited to edit over email when an TEiC runs the  command `@editorialbot invite @editor1 as editor`.
+Editors may also be invited to edit over email when an TEiC runs the command `@editorialbot invite @editor1 as editor`.
 
 ### Finding reviewers
 
-At this point, the handling editor's job is to identify reviewers who have sufficient expertise in the field of software and in the field of the submission. JOSS papers have to have a minimum of two reviewers per submission, except for papers that have previously been peer-reviewed via rOpenSci. In some cases, the editor also might want to formally add themself as one of the reviewers. If the editor feels particularly unsure of the submission, a third (or fourth) reviewer can be recruited.
+At this point, the handling editor's job is to identify reviewers who have sufficient expertise in the field of software and in the field of the submission. JOSS papers have to have a minimum of two reviewers per submission, except for papers that have previously been peer-reviewed via rOpenSci. In some cases, the editor also might want to formally add themselves as one of the reviewers. If the editor feels particularly unsure of the submission, a third (or fourth) reviewer can be recruited.
 
 To recruit reviewers, the handling editor can mention them in the `PRE-REVIEW` issue with their GitHub handle, ping them on Twitter, or email them. After expressing initial interest, candidate reviewers may need a longer explanation via email. See sample reviewer invitation email, below.
 
@@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ Finding reviewers can be challenging, especially if a submission is outside of y
 - Ask on social networks: Sometimes asking on Twitter for reviewers can identify good candidates.
 - Check the work being referenced in the submission:
   - Authors of software that is being built on might be interested in reviewing the submission.
-  - Users of the the software that is being submission be interested in reviewing the submission
+  - Users of the software that is being submission be interested in reviewing the submission
 - Avoid asking JOSS editors to review: If at all possible, avoid asking JOSS editors to review as they are generally very busy editing their own papers.
 
 Once a reviewer accepts, the handling editor runs the command `@editorialbot add @username as reviewer` in the `PRE-REVIEW` issue. Add more reviewers with the same command.
@@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ Sometimes you'll need to add a new reviewer once the main review (i.e. post pre-
 
 ## After reviewers recommend acceptance
 
-When a submission is ready to be accepted, we ask that the authors issue a new tagged release of the software (if changed), and archive it (on [Zenodo](https://zenodo.org/), [fig**share**](https://figshare.com/), or other). The authors then post the version number and archive DOI in the `REVIEW` issue. The handling editor executes the pre-publication steps, and pings the Track Editor in Chief for final processing.
+When a submission is ready to be accepted, we ask that the authors issue a new tagged release of the software (if changed), and archive it (on [Zenodo](https://zenodo.org/), [fig**share**](https://figshare.com/), or other). The authors then post the version number and archive DOI in the `REVIEW` issue. The handling editor executes the pre-publication steps, and pings the Track Editor-in-Chief for final processing.
 
 Optionally you can ask EditorialBot to generate a checklist with all the post-review steps running the command: `@editorialbot create post-review checklist`
 
@@ -286,7 +286,8 @@ This doesn’t mean that you’re the editor, just that you’ve been suggested
 
 **Step 6: The editor finds >= 2 reviewers**
 
-- Use the list of reviewers: type the command `@editorialbot list reviewers` or look at list of reviewers in a Google [spreadsheet](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PAPRJ63yq9aPC1COLjaQp8mHmEq3rZUzwUYxTulyu78/edit?usp=sharing)
+- Use the list of reviewers: type the command `@editorialbot list reviewers` or
+  look at use the [Reviewers Management System](https://reviewers.joss.theoj.org)
 - If people are in the review list, the editor can @-mention them on the issue to see if they will review: e.g. `@person1 @person2 can you review this submission for JOSS?`
 - Or solicit reviewers outside the list. Send an email to people describing what JOSS is and asking if they would be interested in reviewing.
 - If you ask the author to suggest potential reviewers, please be sure to tell the author not to @-tag their suggestions.