10 Questions a Publisher Should Ask the Editorial Office/Society

By Adam Etkin
Publishing Consultant
Origin Editorial
aetkin@origineditorial.com
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/aetkin/

Take Home Points:

A previous ORIGINal Thoughts post, “Time to Move On: Moving Journals to a New Publisher,” discussed the importance of asking questions and having conversations with publishers when evaluating your current or future publisher. But what about the other way around? What questions should the publisher ask the editorial office or society? A good publisher, one that is committed to your journal and organization, will consistently evaluate not just your performance but their own as well. The academic publishing industry is constantly in flux as new technologies emerge, funding mandates change, and science evolves and develops. While using metrics and data to gauge performance is important, perhaps more vital is frequent, clear, and productive communication between both parties.

In this post, we’ve included questions and sample answers that are designed to foster meaningful, strategic conversations between a publisher and an editorial office or society. By addressing topics ranging from core values to workflow efficiency, publishers and editorial teams can ensure that they are aligned on a journal’s objectives, priorities, and day-to-day operations. The end goal is a dialogue that supports proactive problem-solving, identifies opportunities for growth and collaboration, and supports the journal’s impact, relevance, and longevity.

Q: What are your journal’s core values, and how do these inform your strategic priorities and editorial approach?

A: Our core values include integrity in scholarship, inclusivity in authorship and editorial representation, transparency in processes, and scientific rigor. These values guide our editorial decisions, inform our peer review standards, and shape our author engagement strategy. For instance, we actively seek to diversify our reviewer pool and prioritize transparent peer review models where appropriate.

Q: Are your journal’s aims and scope up-to-date and aligned with the content you publish? Could it be updated in light of changes in your field or beyond? Are there emerging topic areas or trends the journal should begin covering?

A: We revisit our aims and scope every 2–3 years. While they are largely aligned with our current content, we’re noticing an uptick in submissions in emerging areas like toxicology. We’re open to evolving the scope to reflect these trends more explicitly, with input from our editorial board and publisher.

Q: How do you approach journal metrics? Which metrics do you consider most important? Which are least important, and why? More broadly, how do you define success for your journal?

A: We monitor traditional metrics like Impact Factor and citations, but also focus on engagement metrics like downloads, Altmetric scores, and international reach. Author satisfaction, reviewer responsiveness, and policy alignment (e.g., with open science mandates) are increasingly important. Success is not just prestige—it’s relevance, credibility, and reach within our community.

Q: Where is your journal currently indexed, and what are your goals for indexing and discoverability?

A: We’re currently indexed in Scopus and Web of Science. One of our medium-term goals is inclusion in PubMed, ESCI, and Medline to boost visibility. We’re also interested in expanding metadata quality, discoverability on platforms like Google Scholar, and improving our SEO practices—areas where we welcome publisher support.

Q: What kinds of marketing, communications, or promotional activities do you currently pursue? Are you engaging in any author/reviewer outreach or conference presence? What collaboration or support would you most value from your publisher?

A: Our team promotes select content via social media, newsletters, and society email lists. We attend major conferences where we promote the journal informally. A structured marketing calendar, help with targeted campaigns, and media toolkits for authors would be valuable. Co-branded efforts from the publisher could also help amplify our reach.

Q: Have you identified any concerning trends (e.g., decline in submissions, increase in desk rejections, lengthy decision times)? What kind of support would be most helpful to address these concerns?

A: We’ve seen a modest drop in submissions, likely due to competition and broader systemic pressures (e.g., funding constraints). We’ve also noted longer peer review times. We could use help with analyzing possible causes, and tools or incentives for engaging reviewers and reducing time-to-decision.

Q: What are the most efficient and successful parts of your workflow? Where are the pain points?

A: Our editorial team is strong at initial triage and author communication, and we’ve streamlined our production process. However, locating willing reviewers and managing special issue workflows can be time-consuming. Training for new editors, clearer system tools and/or automation could help smooth these areas.

Q: Do you feel that the structure of your editorial board serves your journal well? Does your editorial board adequately represent the diversity of your field? If applicable, are associate editors and editorial board members supported?

A: We’re proud of our board’s subject expertise, but we acknowledge it does not fully reflect the global and demographic diversity of our field. We are working on outreach and a more transparent selection process. An important aspect of this is that our more senior board members act as mentors to reviewers and newer board members. Better onboarding materials, training, and feedback from the publisher would support these efforts.

Q: What are your main concerns surrounding publication ethics? How do you address issues when they arise?

A: We are committed to COPE guidelines and take allegations seriously. Issues like plagiarism, duplicate submission, and data integrity are the most common. We rely on editorial judgment and publisher support (e.g., plagiarism detection tools, legal consultation) to resolve complex cases. The new area everyone is dealing with is AI and what’s acceptable and what’s not. Proactive education for our editorial team, authors, and reviewers would be helpful.

Q: Do members of your society feel connected to the journal? Does the journal meet the needs of society members?

A: Our journal is seen as a flagship asset of the society, but we want to deepen engagement. We’re exploring more content tied to society initiatives, perhaps thematic issues or more opinion and commentary pieces. Surveying members and building reciprocal visibility between the journal and society could help.

By asking these key questions as a regular part of publisher–editorial office dialogue, both parties can move beyond typical interactions and cultivate a true partnership. This kind of open, strategic communication helps anticipate challenges, align shared goals and ensures that the journal is not only keeping pace with change but leading it. In a dynamic publishing landscape, success depends not just on data or reputation, but on collaboration, trust, and a shared commitment to the journal’s mission. These conversations are not just helpful, they’re essential.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Thanks to Joseph Tumolo at Sage Publishing for providing the 10 questions.