Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Estimates suggest the existence of approximately 30 000 scholarly journals, and raise questions regarding the wisdom of starting new journals. New journals lack key metrics of legitimacy, such as an impact factor, or Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) memberships, by the simple virtue of being new. Nevertheless, there may be instances when starting a new journal meets a legitimate unmet need. However, little guidance exists for academic publishers to identify whether a need exists for a newly-launched peer-reviewed journal.
Objectives: We propose to develop a 2-step mechanism for academic publishers to identify whether a need exists for a newly-launched periodical.
Methods: Step 1) By searching publicly available data online, including faculty webpages and publications, we are created an international database of researchers pertinent to the scope of a newly-launched publication focussed on natural health products. We then manually extracted the following items for pertinent researchers: researcher name, affiliation, academic rank, research interest(s), faculty webpage URL, and title and journal of recently published research articles. Step 2) Upon database completion following search saturation, we designed and are currently administering a survey that includes questions that capture researchers’ preferences towards open access publishing and the desirability for a new field-specific journal.
Results: Survey collection is still ongoing. Upon completion, this will serve two major purposes: 1) to provide publishers with a clear understanding of what researchers and types of research exist (or alternatively, are lacking) in the discipline (i.e. natural health products) pertaining to their contemplated publication, and 2) to afford the opportunity to directly gather data from potential future journal contributors, allowing publishers to specifically tailor their publication to their authors’ needs and preferences.
Conclusions: Academic publishers have the responsibility to establish novel journals based on a properly-identified need expressed by the researcher community. We propose a unique and novel model that provides academic publishers with actionable steps to identify whether a need exists for a newly-launched peer-reviewed journal. Future work standardizing this protocol may result in the development of a guideline offering academic publishers greater guidance in establishing new periodicals positioned for greater long-term success.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: Besides researcher and publisher participation, patients with a particular interest in reading peer-reviewed literature should also be promoted to contribute to improving this protocol.
Objectives: We propose to develop a 2-step mechanism for academic publishers to identify whether a need exists for a newly-launched periodical.
Methods: Step 1) By searching publicly available data online, including faculty webpages and publications, we are created an international database of researchers pertinent to the scope of a newly-launched publication focussed on natural health products. We then manually extracted the following items for pertinent researchers: researcher name, affiliation, academic rank, research interest(s), faculty webpage URL, and title and journal of recently published research articles. Step 2) Upon database completion following search saturation, we designed and are currently administering a survey that includes questions that capture researchers’ preferences towards open access publishing and the desirability for a new field-specific journal.
Results: Survey collection is still ongoing. Upon completion, this will serve two major purposes: 1) to provide publishers with a clear understanding of what researchers and types of research exist (or alternatively, are lacking) in the discipline (i.e. natural health products) pertaining to their contemplated publication, and 2) to afford the opportunity to directly gather data from potential future journal contributors, allowing publishers to specifically tailor their publication to their authors’ needs and preferences.
Conclusions: Academic publishers have the responsibility to establish novel journals based on a properly-identified need expressed by the researcher community. We propose a unique and novel model that provides academic publishers with actionable steps to identify whether a need exists for a newly-launched peer-reviewed journal. Future work standardizing this protocol may result in the development of a guideline offering academic publishers greater guidance in establishing new periodicals positioned for greater long-term success.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: Besides researcher and publisher participation, patients with a particular interest in reading peer-reviewed literature should also be promoted to contribute to improving this protocol.