Roles, Challenges, and Sustainability of Australian Journals: A Survey of Editors

3.1 Roles of National Journals

The survey started with a question asking editors: “Do you see your journal primarily as a national or international journal”? The majority of editors (63%, N = 88) considered their journal as an international journal and 51 editors (37%) considered their journal to be a national journal.

The editors were asked how they perceive the importance of various roles for Australian journals in the national scholarly communication system (Figure 1). The most highly valued role was “Linking research and practice in the Australian context,” with 40% (N = 55) of respondents rating it as Very important. This was closely followed by “Sustaining local disciplinary communities” (39%, N = 53) and “Covering local issues not addressed by international journals” (33%, N = 46). While still considered important, “Providing training grounds for early-career researchers” received the lowest percentage (28%, N = 39) of Very important ratings. The question had an “Other, please specify” option that 26 editors (19%) used.

Figure 1

Percentage of responses to “Please indicate the importance of the following roles for your journal in the national scholarly communication system?” (N = 139).

Non-parametric independent-samples Mann-Whitney U test showed that there was a statistically significant difference between national (M = 4.2) and international journals (M = 3.3) in the case of the statement about covering local issues (U = 1412.00, z = −3.67, p < 0.001). Mann-Whitney U test also showed there was a statistically significant difference between national (M = 4.4) and international journals (M = 3.4) in the case of the statement about linking research and practice (U = 1314.50, z = −4.26, p < 0.001). In terms of subject area (Kruskal-Wallis H = 12.89, df = 5, p = 0.024), linking research and practice was the least important for multidisciplinary journals (M = 2.7) and the most important for health sciences (M = 4.2) and life sciences (M = 4.0)

Other roles added by respondents who used the “Other, please specify” option, can be categorized as below. The percentages in brackets are out of total responses (out of 139):

• International and regional focus (seven responses, 5%). This included connecting international and Australian researchers, encouraging and providing outlets for papers from specific regions (e.g., Pacific Island nations, New Guinea, Melanesia), internationalizing local issues, and inviting international researchers to engage with local issues.

• Specialized content focus (seven responses, 5%). This category of roles included covering specific subjects (e.g., Australian endemic flora, history of a specific state) and specific type of content (e.g., book reviews, analytical bibliographies).

• Alternative or unique research perspectives (three responses, 2%). This included publishing research with alternative methodologies or participant groups, and providing space for non-academic articles/researchers and developing theoretical approaches (e.g., in law).

• Professional and organizational support (three responses, 2%). As some journals are owned or affiliated with societies and associations, they have specific roles to play in relation to those organizations or communities that were included in this group. These were reporting on professional association events and goals, providing benefits for organization membership, and reflecting an organization’s goals in the national scholarly landscape.

• Open access and accessibility (two responses, 1%). Two made comments in relation to “offering low or no-cost open access publishing opportunities” and making Australian research (e.g., case studies) accessible internationally.

• Public engagement (two responses, 1%). Communicating with the general public and “fostering Australia’s finest writers” were two comments under this category.

• National identity and leadership (two responses, 1%). This included badging Australia/specific universities as leaders in certain fields and reflecting Australasian philosophy in editorial approach.

• Mentoring (1 response, 1%). One respondent mentioned mentoring inexperienced researchers.

3.2 Conflict Between Internationalization and Local Roles

As there might be conflicts between national roles and values of journal and internationalization, the editors were asked about their perception on the level of such conflicts (Table 2). The majority of respondents (76%) saw little (32%) to no tension (44%) between internationalization and maintaining local roles and values of their journals. A smaller proportion (17%) of respondents reported moderate conflict. Only a small percentage of editors perceived high levels of conflict, with both Significant conflict and Very significant conflict categories each reported by 4% of respondents.

Comparing national with international journals, while 49% (N = 43) of international journals chose no conflict, this number for national journals was smaller (35%, N = 18). Other characteristics such as subject area made no difference in the perceived level of conflict.

A subsequent open-ended question asked to respondents “Please explain any conflicts you have observed between the internationalization and the local roles and values of your journal, or explain why you see no conflict.” One hundred respondents answered this question. The comments are categorized and presented below based on the level of conflict they chose in previous question (i.e., Table 2).

3.3 Factors Affecting Viability of Journals

Figure 2 presents the perceived importance of various factors for achieving long-term viability of Australian journals. “Attracting quality in-scope submissions” emerged as the most crucial factor, with a mean score of 4.7 and 95% of respondents rating it as Important or Very important. This was followed closely by “Attracting qualified reviewers” (mean score 4.4, 89% rating it as Important or Very important).

Figure 2

Percentage of responses to “Please rate the importance of the following factors in achieving long-term viability for your journal” (N ≈ 138).

Other highly rated factors included “Ensuring long-term content preservation” (M = 4.1), “Having adequate staff and managing workloads for editorial processes” (M = 4), and “Obtaining support from the parent organization” (M = 4). Factors such as “Achieving indexing in major databases” (M = 3.8) and “Marketing to gain visibility and readership” (M = 3.5) were moderately important. “Establishing partnerships with international publishers” was rated as least important, with a mean score of 2.4 and 59% of respondents considering it Not important or only Slightly important.

Twenty-four respondents used “other, please specify” option. A few simply used the comment box to provide more information about their journal (for instance if they are indexed or not). A few added new factors, which included distribution, quality copy-editing (which the editor said is declining), good and supportive internal processes for various operations, communication with stakeholders, support from publisher, collaboration and networking with other editors, and the broader circumstances around a profession which can affect the journal that serves that profession. The rest simply highlighted one of the factors already listed in the question. These included partnership with publishers, support from parent organization, attracting enough submissions, finding willing reviewers, long-term preservation, and budget and reliance on voluntary work.

Looking at the statistical differences, two items stood out. “Achieving and maintaining a high Impact Factor/ranking” was the most important for Gold OA journals (M = 4.4 compared to the overall M = 3.4; X ( 4 ) 2 = 12.4 p = 0.014). This makes sense as these authors might be less likely to pay APC for a journal that has low ranking. “Establishing partnership with international publishers” was the most important for hybrid journals (M = 3.8 compared to the overall M = 2.8; X ( 4 ) 2 = 37.0 p = 0.001). This might be because the majority of hybrid journals are published by international publishers and have gone through this process of establishing partnership.

Besides the importance of each factor, we wanted to know the extent to which each factor is a challenging issue for the long-term viability of Australian journals. Figure 3 illustrates the results. “Attracting qualified reviewers” emerged as the most significant challenge, with a mean score of 3.5 and 55% of respondents rating it as Challenging or Very challenging. This was followed by “Reliance on voluntary work for editorial processes” (mean 3.3, 46% rating it as Challenging or Very challenging). “Lack of quality submissions” was also a notable concern (M = 3), while “Lack of in-scope submissions” and “Marketing to gain visibility and readership” presented moderate challenges (M = 2.6 each).

Figure 3

Percentage of responses to “How challenging are currently each of the following issues for your journal’s long-term viability?” (N ≈ 137).

Interestingly, issues often considered crucial for journal success were perceived as less challenging. “Low ranking of the journal,” “Lack of funding and financial stability,” and “Achieving indexing in major databases” (M = 2.4 all three) were rated as less problematic. “Lack of support from the parent organization” (M = 1.7) and “Establishing partnerships with international publishers” (M = 1.5) were perceived as the least challenging issues.

There was an “other, please specify” option which 12 (9% of total) respondents used. Two of the comments were made by editors of journals belonging to associations; one indicated that the factors listed in the question did not apply to them as a members-based journal, and the other indicated that their journal operated well, even though all editorial work was undertaken on a voluntary basis. One editor mentioned attracting citations and another pointed to insufficient funding to operate the journal (its publishing has been outsourced to an international commercial publisher). Other challenges mentioned included “research assessment ranking and funders’ requirement for publishing” which affect journal ranking, the threat from “predatory journals,” “attracting high quality editors in a nuanced field,” and having good internal processes for authors, reviewers, production, etc. Finally, one editor pointed out that their journal is a well-established highly ranked journal and most of these challenges have been solved over the years.

Regarding statistical differences, editors of Gold OA journals saw “Achieving indexing in major databases” less challenging than other editors (M = 1.2 compared to the overall M = 2.6). Hybrid journal editors were also less likely than others to see this as a challenge (1.9). This might be because these two groups are journals that are mostly likely well-indexed in databases or perhaps because OA journals are less likely to see indexing as a priority.

3.4 Practices for Long-Term Viability

A free-text question asked “What practices have you implemented that you believe contribute to the long-term viability of your journal?” and 120 editors (86% of total) answered the questions. They altogether mentioned about 285 actions that journals had taken. These are grouped and presented under broader categories below that reflect journals’ operations.

3.5 Support by Parent Organization

Editors were asked “does your journal have a parent organization (e.g., a society, association etc)?.” The majority (N = 112, 81%) said Yes. Those who said yes were then asked about their satisfaction with the support provided by their parent organizations across various areas. The results are presented in Figure 4.

Figure 4

Percentage response to “How satisfied are you with the support provided by your parent organization in the following areas?” (N = 113).

“Financial support” received the highest satisfaction, with 68% (N = 77) of respondents being Satisfied or Very satisfied. “Administrative and technical support” followed closely, with 62% (N = 70) expressing satisfaction. “Marketing and promotional efforts” showed moderate satisfaction (50%, N = 56 Satisfied or Very satisfied), while “Strategic planning and long-term vision” yielded more mixed results (44%, N = 49 satisfied, 20%, N = 22 dissatisfied, 37%, N = 41 neutral). “Training and professional development for editorial staff” emerged as the least satisfactory area, with only 28% (32) expressing satisfaction and a majority (57%, N = 64) remaining neutral.

3.6 OA

Table 3 presents the OA strategies and situations of Australian journals. The majority (88%) of respondents were satisfied with their current publishing model, whether OA or not, and have no plans for change. Among the small minority planning transitions, there is an even split between models with and without APCs. Five percent plan to shift to a subscription model with an OA option (hybrid), while 4% each plan to move to Gold OA (with APCs) or Diamond OA (without APCs).

3.7 Editorial Role

Table 4 illustrates the compensation and support provided for editorial roles in Australian journals. The most notable finding is that 45% of respondents receive no compensation or workload concessions for their editorial duties, which highlights the significant reliance on voluntary work in journal editing within Australia. Honoraria from publishers or journal owners represent the most common form of direct compensation, reported by 35% of respondents. However, formal recognition of editorial duties within academic workloads appears uncommon, with only 12% receiving workload concessions. Interestingly, 23 (17%) of respondents indicated receiving some other form of compensation or support not specified in the main categories, and 22 of them used the comment box to specify what support they receive. Eleven editors said they are paid for the role, and for some of them, the role seemed to be part of their employment and their salary covered it. One mentioned that they received an honorarium, which was already in the question’s options. Other forms of compensation mentioned included work reference (letter), and credit points toward course completion (for students editing a graduate journal). Finally, one respondent stated that they did not receive any compensation as it was a postgraduate journal. A few comments did not specify any compensation.

In terms of years of experience as editors, the respondents were distributed relatively evenly (Table 5) with a mix of highly experienced editors (28% with more than 15 years) and editors with less than 5 years of experience (30%). Years of experience made no statistically meaningful difference in the type of compensation editors received for their editorial work.

3.8 Final Remarks

Several clear themes emerged from an analysis of free text responses to the final survey question (“Please provide any additional comments or suggestions you have regarding the challenges and opportunities for Australian journal publishing.”). Eighty-one (58% of total) respondents added a text response to this question.

4.1 Dual Identity of Australian Journals

While 63% of editors consider their journals international, there is still a strong emphasis on national roles. This reflects a tension between global aspirations and local relevance. The high importance placed on roles such as linking research and practice in the Australian context and sustaining local disciplinary communities highlights the unique value of Australian journals. Past studies have associated these roles with local and national journals and showed that national journals provide more coverage of research areas where a country holds a unique position (Ma, 2019), and that they are preferred outlets for research that address issues of local significance (Sivertsen, 2016). The identity and the roles a journal assume affect editorial decisions, content selection, and overall journal strategy. Some of the editors see their journals as a purely international journal, while there are others who have a strong local focus. The journals that try to serve both local and international communities and aspire to be international while staying locally relevant might find more tension between their international aspiration and local roles and values. Closely related to this issue of dual identity is the role of journal rankings and indexation, with the free text comments emphasizing the fact that researchers are heavily incentivized to publish in higher ranking journals. This inevitably leads many local journals to face a difficult choice: maintain a strictly local focus, thereby potentially benefitting Australian scholarship but creating a barrier to attracting quality submissions; or internationalize and increase the potential for quality submissions, but at the expense of a local disciplinary identity.

4.2 Challenges to Long-Term Viability

As previous studies show, while starting a journal in an online environment may be technically easy, making it a sustainable enterprise is not straightforward (Cavaleri, Keren, Ramello, & Valli, 2009). There can be various challenges to the long-term viability of a journal. The survey showed that attracting quality submissions and qualified reviewers emerged as the top challenges from the editors’ perspective. There have been concerns globally about the increasing difficulty of finding qualified reviewers, even though it might not be a problem for every journal (Zupanc, 2024). Reviewer fatigue and lack of formal recognition have been acknowledged in the literature and suggestions have been made over the years to address this problem including the notion of paying reviewers (Brainard, 2021, Seghier, 2024).

The heavy reliance on voluntary work (45% of editors receive no compensation) also raises questions about long-term sustainability, as burnout for editors is a real concern (Lange & Severson, 2022) and there were comments in the survey about the well-being of editors. This is probably a trend in non-commercial journal publishing. A survey of such journals in Canada showed that while editor-in-chief was a common role with high workload, it had a low rate of receiving any monetary compensation (Lange & Severson, 2022).

The pressure of journal rankings and metrics at least in the case of some journals adds to the severity of the problem with submission quality and quantity. This could create a downward spiral where lower-ranked journals struggle to improve their standing.

4.3 OA Landscape

A significant portion of journals (41%) operate under a diamond OA model. This is notable and could be contrasted with global trends. Although finding accurate data on different types of OA is difficult, an earlier global study estimated that 8–9% of the global scholarly output is published in Diamond OA journals and that Diamond OA is more important in HASS, although these journals usually publish fewer papers than journals in scientific disciplines. The fact that a considerable portion of Australian journals are Diamond OA is a positive step toward achieving the goal of “making all academic literature accessible to all”; a goal that is the target of the initiatives by the Australian Chief Scientist (Office of the Chief Scientist, 2024).

The high satisfaction with current publishing models (88% have no plans to change) suggests stability but could also indicate resistance to change. This is something that needs further research and we hope to explore this in the second phase of the study in interviewing editors. A previous study revealed that nearly all scholar-led journals, either already OA or aspiring to be, are concerned about their long-term viability in an OA environment, and that maintaining OA requires at least a modest level of support, particularly for staffing, even for journals primarily operated by volunteers (Morrison, 2016). Making knowledge more accessible is not the only factor that journals consider when deciding about their publishing model and whether they should transition to OA. There are many other factors and barriers to OA transitions, such as financial constraints, and society member preferences for physical copies of the journal. A survey of editors in library and information science showed that most journals had not discussed the transition to a no-publishing fee OA model and that finances were the main barrier (Borchardt, Schultz, & Dawson, 2024). To add to the complexity of OA transition, at least in the case of society journals, whether a journal is self-published or outsourced is also an important factor in its successful transition (Johnson & Malcolmson, 2024).

4.4 Role of Parent Organizations and Support Structure

While financial support from parent organizations is generally satisfactory (68% satisfied or very satisfied), there are clear gaps in other areas, particularly in training and professional development (only 28% satisfied). It should be noted that about two-thirds of Australian journals belong to non-profit organizations (e.g., societies). Globally, learned societies and associations face challenges such as a decline in membership and revenue (Johnson, 2024). However, the support provided by parent organizations and publishers (if the journal is not self-published) is critical for journal quality, editor retention, and long-term sustainability. Moreover, the support structure needs to go beyond the institutions directly involved with a journal (i.e., owner or publisher). The majority of the work done for running a journal is done by academics and therefore, universities and research policy has a potential role to play in supporting journals.