Étiquette : Maryna Nazarovets

Catégories
EN

Visible as Journals, Invisible as Publishers: Limitations of OpenAlex for Analysing University Publishing

Author : Maryna Nazarovets

This study presents the results of an exploratory audit of publisher-affiliation metadata for a selected sample of university-published journals in OpenAlex. A corpus of 60 UJs from 10 countries, chosen to represent low-visibility publishing environments, was examined. Journal records retrieved from OpenAlex in January 2025 and January 2026 were manually verified against Ulrichsweb, the journals’ websites, and the ISSN Portal, in order to assess the journals’ indexing status and the presence of publisher-related metadata.

While OpenAlex indexes a significant proportion of the sampled journals, including titles not covered by major commercial indexing systems, coverage remains incomplete, even for active journals. Furthermore, structured publisher affiliation was rarely found within the sample.

In January 2025, only 9% of indexed journals were linked to a publisher entity via OpenAlex’s publisher-affiliation fields. By January 2026, publisher names appeared more frequently as unstructured text, while the proportion of journals linked to a publisher entity remained largely unchanged.

These results indicate that university journals are often visible in OpenAlex as sources, but are insufficiently represented at the publisher level, limiting the interpretability of institutional publishing activity and obscuring the role of university publishing in the broader scholarly landscape.

URL : Visible as Journals, Invisible as Publishers: Limitations of OpenAlex for Analysing University Publishing

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2061

 

Catégories
EN

Prevention of Endogamy in the Editorial Boards of University Journals

Authors : Maryna Nazarovets, Serhii Nazarovets

Editorial endogamy, the over-representation of scholars affiliated with a journal’s host institution on its editorial board, is a widespread phenomenon in university journals (UJs). This practice is often shaped by institutional traditions, resource limitations, internal loyalty, promotion incentives, and opaque selection practices.

While some degree of institutional representation is inevitable, excessive editorial endogamy raises concerns about peer review integrity, international visibility, and negatively impacts the credibility and inclusivity of scholarly publishing. This review explores the systemic drivers of editorial endogamy, focusing on institutional governance structures, national research policies, and academic evaluation frameworks that influence editorial board composition in UJs.

Additionally, we review best practices to mitigate negative effects, including increasing editorial transparency, diversifying peer review processes, and strengthening regulatory oversight. Strategies such as rotational editorial leadership, transparent peer review policies, structured regulatory interventions, and cross-institutional collaborations are recommended to balance institutional autonomy with international publishing standards.

The implementation of these measures has the potential to enhance the credibility, inclusivity, and global impact of UJs while preserving their role in supporting local and disciplinary research communities.

Recognizing the constraints faced by many UJs, we propose flexible and scalable solutions to enhance editorial integrity while considering the operational realities of university-based publishing. Effectively addressing editorial endogamy requires coordinated action among universities, journal editors, and policymakers.

URL : s10805-025-09Prevention of Endogamy in the Editorial Boards of University Journals687-z

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-025-09687-z

Catégories
EN

Rejected papers in academic publishing: Turning negatives into positives to maximize paper acceptance

Authors : Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, Maryna Nazarovets

There are ample reasons why papers might get rejected by peer-reviewed journals, and the experience can be, especially for those who have had little experience, sobering. When papers get rejected a number of times, that may signal that there are problems with the paper (e.g., weak methodology or lack of robust analyses), that it is insufficiently developed, is poorly written, or that it is too topic-specific and needs to find an appropriate niche journal.

In the case of a single or multiple rejections, whenever there is feedback from a journal, as well as reasons for rejection, this provides a useful signal for improving the paper before it is resubmitted to another journal. This article examines literature related to the rejection of papers in academic journals, encompassing the opinions and experiences offered by authors, as well as advice suggested by editors, allowing readers and authors who experience rejections to reflect on the possible reasons that may have led to that outcome.

Many papers related to this topic were published as editorials or opinions, offering advice on how to improve aspects of a submitted paper in order to increase its chances of acceptance.

URL : Rejected papers in academic publishing: Turning negatives into positives to maximize paper acceptance

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1649