Dear Neil and all,
Thank you for highlighting this study. While its intentions are good, it's incomplete (discussed below) and their top level conclusion, "There is little formal guidance regarding how to start a scholarly journal" belies "51 unique recommendations across thirteen categories which included journal operations, editorial review processes, peer review processes, open access publishing, copyediting, production, indexing, archiving, patient engagement, journal metrics, obtaining peer reviewers, and article processing charges," and that's missing several sources.
The authors cite several major sources but not as part of their search results, perhaps because their search phrase used for the grey literature that includes most of the recommendations was very specifically worded: “starting a new scholarly journal”. For example, in the Introduction the authors refer to the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice from COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, and WAME (https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines/principles-transparen...) (first released in 2013, with 3 revisions since, most recently in September 2022), yet do not include them in their criteria because they say that "there is not (yet) a broad consensus in this space." (These 4 editing/publishing independent organizations jointly developed guidelines, received feedback from the broader community, and revised them three times to date, and I believe the guidelines represent more consensus than many sources the scoping review included.) In the Discussion they cite INASP's Handbook for Journal Editors https://www.inasp.info/sites/default/files/2018-04/INASP%20-%20Editors%2... but don't include it in recommendations. A good source for technical requirements is a Scholarly Kitchen article, "Nuts and Bolts: The Super Long List of Things to Do When Starting a New Journal (https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2016/08/04/nuts-and-bolts-the-super-...),"
but again that is cited in the Discussion, not in the results.
They do not cite WAME's Syllabus for Prospective and Newly Appointed Editors
(https://wame.org/syllabus-for-prospective-and-newly-appointed-editors), which includes important information specifically for editors, again perhaps
because of the search criteria.
They conclude, "Given the contrasting recommendations and varying range of advice, a stakeholder-led, survey-informed consensus approach on creating and operating a new scholarly journal may better support the quality of scholarly publishing in new journals," which they are likely already developing. However, they assume that a publisher will start a journal, but that's not necessarily the case especially in LMICs; a journal may be started by an academic institution, an NGO, or a government. A publisher likely would consider whether a journal will generate profit or at least cover costs before starting it, whereas a journal in an LMIC may fill an important niche and be published under the platinum model, open access and free to publish. The considerations for starting a new journal are very different depending on the goals for creating it.
In sum, there is no single answer to how to start a journal, but useful guidance is available.
Best wishes,
Margaret
Margaret Winker, MD
Trustee, World Association of Medical Editors
*Views are my own
HIFA Profile: Margaret Winker is Secretary and Past President of the World Association of Medical Editors in the U.S. Professional interests: WAME is a global association of editors of peer-reviewed medical journals who seek to foster cooperation and communication among editors, improve editorial standards, promote professionalism in medical editing through education, self-criticism, and self-regulation, and encourage research on the principles and practice of medical editing. margaretwinker AT gmail.com
