Introduction

Background

The management of scientific journals has evolved significantly over the years, driven by technological advancements and the globalization of research. Emerging themes such as altmetrics and scientometric indicators now influence editorial practices and citation analysis [1]. Effective journal management involves adopting strategies like robust peer-review processes to enhance impact metrics, as demonstrated by journals with record-high CiteScores [2]. At the same time, digital transformation demands sustainable management approaches to keep pace with rapid technological changes in publishing [3]. The push for internationalization has grown as journals increasingly engage contributors from around the world to boost global citations [4]. Interdisciplinary collaboration and a broader readership have become central to increasing a journal’s impact and relevance [5]. Moreover, evolving editorial policies now reflect shifting academic priorities, such as a renewed focus on theory-building and addressing societal challenges, highlighting the dynamic role of journal management in advancing academic communication [6]. These developments underscore the need for adaptive and innovative approaches to managing scientific journals, ensuring they remain impactful and accessible to a wide audience.

Despite the critical role of scientific journals in disseminating knowledge and the notable advancements achieved in recent years, research summarizing the development of journal management over time remains scarce. Although various studies have explored specific aspects, such as digitalization, editorial workflows, or open access policies, a comprehensive review of how these components have evolved holistically is largely absent. Through a systematic examination of previous research, scholars can validate their research problems and affirm their contributions to ongoing academic discourse [7].

Objectives

This study aimed to address the existing gap in knowledge by presenting a comprehensive overview of developments in scientific journal management over the past decade. Specifically, the study addressed the following questions: (1) what are the key trends in the development of scientific journal management over the past decade? (2) what challenges and opportunities have emerged during this period? and (3) how have technological innovations, editorial processes, and policy shifts influenced journal management practices?

Methods

Ethics statement

This study did not involve materials of human origin; therefore, neither ethical committee approval nor informed consent was required.

Study design

The research utilized the systematic literature review methodology as outlined by Okoli [8] and Robinson and Lowe [9]. Articles were selected in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) framework by Page et al. [10].

Eligibility criteria

The eligibility criteria are summarized in Table 1.

Information sources

The analysis centered on academic publications sourced from the Scopus database through December 22, 2024.

Search strategy

The search queries used were “TITLE-ABS-KEY (“journal management”)” AND “PUBYEAR > 2012” AND “PUBYEAR < 2024.”

Selection and data collection process

The author conducted data extraction and classification. To refine the search results, predefined selection criteria (Table 1) were applied. Several entries were excluded for various reasons, such as being nonempirical articles or proceedings (e.g., lecture notes, book chapters, or review articles), lacking relevance to the research theme, being inaccessible, or not written in English. The process is illustrated in Fig. 1.

Data items

The extracted data from the included articles comprised metadata and the primary themes addressed in each article.

Synthesis methods

This study employed an inductive thematic approach, as outlined by Braun and Clarke [11], to identify the primary themes emerging from the reviewed papers. The process consisted of six stages: familiarization, theme generation, theme searching, theme reviewing, theme defining and naming, and reporting. The familiarization phase was integrated into the article selection process, as illustrated in the PRISMA flow diagram (Fig. 1).

Reporting bias assessment

Not done.

Certainty assessment

Not done.

Results

Study selection

As illustrated in Fig. 1, the article selection process began with a search of the Scopus database using predefined keywords and criteria, yielding 126 articles, including 1 duplicate. After conducting the selection process, a total of 26 articles were deemed suitable for review.

Study characteristics

The full list of the 26 studies is available in Suppl. 1. Based on the selection process outlined in Fig. 1, 26 articles were reviewed. The thematic analysis identified five key themes: (1) journal management systems and technological improvements; (2) editorial processes, policies, and best practices; (3) metrics, evaluation, and scientometrics; (4) case studies and implementation; and (5) ethical, social, and equity considerations. A summary of the objectives and themes—highlighting the diverse goals and research focuses explored in the reviewed literature —is presented in Suppl. 1. Fig. 2 shows the distribution of publication years for the articles included in this systematic review.

The titles and citation frequencies of the top five cited articles are presented in Table 2 [12–16]. These citation counts underscore each article’s influence on shaping best practices, guiding future studies, and advancing journal management.

Seventy-nine unique authors were affiliated with institutions in 20 countries, reflecting broad international collaboration in this field (Suppl. 2). The United States led with 10 unique institutions, followed by Indonesia (9 institutions) and Germany (7 institutions). Several countries had between one and five institutions, including the United Kingdom, Iran, and Korea. This diversity reflects the global nature of research efforts and demonstrates that scholars from numerous regions and academic settings are advancing knowledge in this domain.

Risk of bias in studies

Not assessed.

Results of syntheses

Journal management systems and technological improvements

A significant focus of the reviewed studies is the development and refinement of journal management systems, with an emphasis on operational efficiency, data integration, and scalability. Hu et al. [12] proposed a linked-data portal to bolster scientometric analyses and streamline editorial decision-making, although issues arose around data security, large-scale querying, and maintaining consistent synchronization between relational databases and semantic formats. Similarly, Fernández-Fernández and Simons [17] employed task algebra to improve hierarchical journal workflows, demonstrating both the benefits of automated semantic analysis and the challenges of parsing recursive tasks and large trace datasets. Torbert [18] evaluated in-house versus outsourced data collection, identifying workflow consolidation, COUNTER (Counting Online User Networked Electronic Resources) compliance, and administrative load as central considerations for maximizing cost-effectiveness and data-driven insights.

Several scholars highlighted integrative approaches: Manalu et al. [19] suggested using TextRank to automate manuscript review quality, while Mehdi et al. [20] advanced a framework that optimized reviewer matching, editor recruitment, and semantic plagiarism detection. Despite certain barriers, such as finding appropriate reviewers and dealing with sophisticated plagiarism, this framework could promote heightened transparency and collaboration. Investigations by Kim et al. [21] and Negahdary [16] underscore the global push for high-functioning manuscript management systems, including Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) integration, live CV updates, and advanced editorial board ranking. While these features raise the bar for editorial oversight, technical support, documentation, and budget constraints remain limiting factors for implementation.

Rounding out these technological innovations, Rusli and Sutopo [13] proposed a 4DX-based scoreboard to monitor editorial tasks in real time, although low adoption rates and technological skill gaps persist. Sundjaja and Handoyono [22], in a study exploring enhancements to Open Journal Systems (OJS) in Indonesia, showed that aligning digital workflows with national accreditation standards improved compliance and interoperability, despite uneven editorial practices across organizations. Baker [23] expanded on open-source journal management systems solutions, explaining that while OJS, Ambra, Lodel, and Janeway offer adaptability and cost benefits, reliance on volunteer-based development poses risks for institutions with limited customization expertise. Other avenues include artificial intelligence (AI)-based financial and plagiarism tools, as described by Azman et al. [24] and Zainal Arifin et al. [25], which can reduce manual tasks and promote integrity. Widowati et al. [26] advocated for centralized journal management, citing enhanced financial transparency, efficient digital object identifier (DOI) activation, and institutional quality control. However, this centralization requires robust technical capacity and effective inter-departmental coordination.

Editorial processes, policies, and best practices

In the second thematic area, the focus shifts to ensuring fair authorship, transparent review protocols, and credible editorial guidelines. Asendorpf et al. [14] proposed practical steps to improve psychological research replicability, including preregistration and open data sharing, though entrenched biases such as P-hacking and the pursuit of only positive findings continue to undermine reproducibility. Copeland [27] detailed the National Information Standards Organization (NISO) Transfer Code of Practice, which enables smoother transitions between publishers by standardizing metadata protocols and minimizing subscriber interruptions. However, challenges remain in maintaining accurate metadata, harmonizing timelines, and ensuring continuous communication among stakeholders. Additionally, Holcombe [15] advocated for CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) as a robust contributorship model that delineates individual responsibilities (e.g., conceptualization, methodology, and software), thereby curtailing honorary authorship and increasing transparency. Nonetheless, this taxonomy faces resistance in traditional fields, where long-standing authorship norms often conflict with progressive recognition models.

Metrics, evaluation, and scientometrics

Studies within this theme recognized that simplistic metrics (e.g., the Journal Impact Factor) are insufficient to capture the multifaceted nature of scholarly influence. Fein [28] used PLOS ONE as an example, highlighting the platform’s openness, large submission volume, and diverse editorial boards, while noting ongoing challenges around acceptance rates, author-pays models, and citation discrepancies. Lukman et al. [29] introduced the S-score for Indonesian journals, mitigating dependence on international databases and facilitating localized performance benchmarks. Ensuring data integrity and cross-platform consistency remains a work in progress. Bianchi et al. [30] developed the F3 -index to evaluate reviewers using variables such as timeliness and report clarity, signaling a move toward deeper insights into reviewer quality despite persisting complexities in measuring subjective review content. Finally, Veretennik and Yudkevich [31] highlighted how overreliance on impact factors misrepresents true journal performance; the authors suggested integrating author-level metrics that reflect the caliber of contributing researchers and amplify regional journals’ contributions.

Case studies and implementation

An analysis of specific journals’ experiences revealed practical strategies for overcoming operational hurdles. Janairo [32] documented how the Manila Journal of Science revived regular publications by embracing online distribution, using social media for promotion, and partnering with external reviewers, although funding gaps and submission competition remained major obstacles. Rapple [33] described how Insights: the UKSG Journal adopted continuous publication to accelerate dissemination, yet encountered difficulties meeting weekly publication targets and rebalancing editorial workloads. Similarly, Minayo [34] showed how Ciência & Saúde Coletiva gained credibility through open access policies, international indexing, and consistent peer-review procedures, even as funding and recognition challenges persisted. Lui [35] highlighted the value of student-led publishing for law journals, noting improvements in student engagement and editorial skills, weighed against concerns regarding credibility, uniform standards, and institutional support.

Ethical, social, and equity considerations

Finally, multiple studies addressed the imperative to cultivate inclusive, fair editorial processes. Babor et al. [36] examined gender imbalances in addiction journals, stressing the need for structural change—through guidelines, diversity committees, and recognition programs—to counter persistent biases and glass ceilings. Stoimenov [37] emphasized similar ethical concerns in mathematics publishing, pointing to peer-review opacity, metric misuse, and overreliance on automated detection tools. Paid reviewer systems and strengthened oversight can bolster accountability and mitigate unethical practices. Collectively, these approaches illuminate how equity-oriented policies and transparent governance promote trust, boost scientific reliability, and reinforce journals’ global reputations.

Discussion

Key results

This review identified 26 articles spanning five themes: journal management systems, editorial processes, metrics and scientometrics, case studies, and ethical and equity issues. These themes underscore the importance of transparent workflows, robust ethical practices, and inclusive policies in enhancing the global impact of scholarly publishing.

Interpretation

The evolution of scientific journal management between 2013 and 2023 highlights the dynamic interplay among technological advancements, editorial best practices, and ethical considerations. Innovations such as AI-driven tools, semantic journal management systems, and automated workflows have significantly enhanced operational efficiency, transparency, and data-driven decision-making. These technologies have streamlined manuscript processing, facilitated reviewer selection, and improved plagiarism detection, ultimately boosting the reliability and credibility of published research. Editorial processes have matured, emphasizing transparent peer-review mechanisms, the adoption of contributorship frameworks like CRediT, and the standardization of workflows to ensure consistency across diverse publication models. Furthermore, metrics and evaluation tools—including localized bibliometric indicators and reviewer performance indices—have shifted the focus from traditional impact factors to multidimensional assessments, reflecting a more nuanced understanding of journal performance and academic influence.

Nonetheless, persistent challenges remain. Issues related to financial sustainability continue to hinder the growth and operational stability of many journals, particularly those in developing regions. Barriers to technical integration, coupled with the lack of skilled personnel to manage advanced systems, present significant obstacles to seamless digital transformation. Gender disparities in editorial leadership, biases in peer-review processes, and inconsistent adherence to ethical standards further exacerbate these challenges. Additionally, journals face difficulties in balancing the pressures of publication quantity with the imperative of maintaining quality and integrity.

Comparison with previous studies

A search of the Scopus database revealed no comparable systematic review on journal management.

Limitations

First, this review is limited by its exclusive reliance on articles sourced from the Scopus database, which may have overlooked insights available in other academic repositories. Second, the exclusion of grey literature, practitioner reports, and editorials may have constrained the scope of this analysis. Third, although the geographical distribution of studies is diverse, it remains concentrated in certain regions, thereby limiting the generalizability of the findings to underrepresented contexts.

Implications

The findings suggest that sustainable journal management requires a holistic approach that integrates technology, policy reform, and institutional support. Academic institutions and journal stakeholders must prioritize investments in digital infrastructure, the upskilling of editorial staff, and the fostering of international collaborations to enhance operational efficiency and global visibility. The implementation of standardized ethical guidelines, such as the SAGER (Sex and Gender Equity in Research) Guidelines, along with contributorship frameworks like CRediT, can help address ongoing issues of transparency, fairness, and inclusivity. Additionally, localized bibliometric tools, such as the S-score, provide contextually relevant performance assessments and reduce overreliance on global indexing databases like Scopus and Web of Science.

Conclusions

Moving forward, advancing journal management practices will necessitate an adaptive, inclusive, and collaborative approach. Stakeholders must remain committed to technological innovation, ethical governance, and institutional capacity building to ensure that scientific journals continue to serve as reliable, accessible, and impactful platforms for disseminating academic knowledge. This review serves as a foundational reference for further discourse, policy-making, and strategic improvements in scholarly publishing practices worldwide.

Notes

Conflict of interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for this article.

Data availability

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.

Supplementary materials

Fig. 1.

PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flow diagram. ^a)Using the search filter feature in Scopus with predetermined criteria. ^b)Including articles that do not meet the criteria that are missed by Scopus filtration.

Fig. 2.

Distribution of the number of articles according to publication year.

References

• 1. Hou J, Yang X, Chen C. Emerging trends and new developments in information science: a document co-citation analysis (2009–2016). Scientometrics 2018;115:869-92.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2695-9. Article
• 2. Channuie P. Trends in sciences: celebrating highest 2023 CiteScore. Trends Sci 2024;21:8593. https://doi.org/10.48048/tis.2024.8593. Article
• 3. Abad-Segura E, González-Zamar MD, Infante-Moro JC, Ruipérez García G. Sustainable management of digital transformation in higher education: global research trends. Sustainability 2020;12:2107. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12052107. Article
• 4. Saes MS, Hourneaux F Jr. Globalisation and localisation in management research publishing. RAUSP Manag J 2019;54:122-4.https://doi.org/10.1108/rausp-04-2019-114. Article
• 5. Ohlan R, Singh R, Kaur S, Ohlan A. A bibliometric analysis of first 45 years of Journal of Management. Ser Rev 2022;48:63-84.https://doi.org/10.1080/00987913.2022.2066964. Article
• 6. Colquitt JA, Zapata-Phelan CP. Trends in theory building and theory testing: a five-decade study of the Academy of Management Journal. Acad Manag J 2007;50:1281-303.https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.28165855. Article
• 7. Parajuli JP. Significance of literature review in the research of social sciences. J Popul Dev 2020;1:96-102.https://doi.org/10.3126/jpd.v1i1.33108. Article
• 8. Okoli C. A guide to conducting a standalone systematic literature review. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 2015;37:879-910.https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.03743. Article
• 9. Robinson P, Lowe J. Literature reviews vs systematic reviews. Aust N Z J Public Health 2015;39:103. https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.12393. ArticlePubMed
• 10. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71. ArticlePubMedPMC
• 11. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2006;3:77-101.https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa. Article
• 12. Hu Y, Janowicz K, McKenzie G, Sengupta K, Hitzler P. A linked-data-driven and semantically-enabled journal portal for scientometrics. In: Alani H, Kagal L, Fokoue A, et al., editors. The Semantic Web: ISWC 2013: proceedings, part II. 12th International Semantic Web Conference; 2013 Oct 21–25; Sydney, NSW, Australia. Springer; 2013. p. 114–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41338-4_8.
• 13. Rusli M, Sutopo H. Development of visualization scoreboard for four disciplines execution visualization of journal publication on mobile devices. Int J Comput Theory Eng 2019;11:97-102.https://doi.org/10.7763/ijcte.2019.V11.1250. Article
• 14. Asendorpf JB, Conner M, De Fruyt F, et al. Recommendations for increasing replicability in psychology. Eur J Personal 2013;27:108-19.https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1919. Article
• 15. Holcombe AO. Contributorship, not authorship: use CRediT to indicate who did what. Publications 2019;7:48. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications7030048. Article
• 16. Negahdary M. A smart editorial board system: an effort to enhance the quality of manuscripts, scientific journals and publishers. Eur Sci Ed 2018;44:10-3.https://doi.org/10.20316/ese.2018.44.17010. Article
• 17. Fernández-Fernández CA, Simons AJ. An implementation of the Task Algebra, a formal specification for the task model in the discovery method. J Appl Res Technol 2014;12:908-18.https://doi.org/10.1016/s1665-6423(14)70597-8. Article
• 18. Torbert C. Cost-per-use versus hours-per-report: usage reporting and the value of staff time. Ser Libr 2015;68:163-7.https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526x.2015.1017705. Article
• 19. Manalu SR, Sundjaja AM. Review assessment support in Open Journal System using TextRank. J Phys Conf Ser 2017;801:012074. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/801/1/012074. Article
• 20. Mehdi D, Lagzian M, Borchardt G. Information systems in journal management: the ugly duckling of academic publishing. Eur Sci Ed 2017;43:7-10.https://doi.org/10.20316/ese.2017.43.032. Article
• 21. Kim S, Choi H, Kim N, Chung E, Lee JY. Comparative analysis of manuscript management systems for scholarly publishing. Sci Ed 2018;5:124-34.https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.137. Article
• 22. Sundjaja AM, Handoyono Y. The improvement of Open Journal System for successful national journal accreditation in Indonesia. Int J Innov Technol Explor Eng 2019;8:3882-5.https://doi.org/10.35940/ijitee.J9416.0981119. Article
• 23. Baker S. Assessing Open Source journal management software. J Electron Publ 2020;23(1):https://doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0023.101. Article
• 24. Azman NA, Mohamed A, Jamil AM. Artificial intelligence in automated bookkeeping: a value-added function for small and medium enterprises. Int J Inform Vis 2021;5:224-30.https://doi.org/10.30630/joiv.5.3.669. Article
• 25. Zainal Arifin M, Aji Prasetya W, Harits Ar Rosyid, Daniar W. Plagiarism spider: how to collect plagiarism from article. J Phys Conf Ser 2021;1908:012008. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1908/1/012008. Article
• 26. Widowati E, Wijaya A, Kadarwati S, Maretta YA. Why must journals at the university level be well managed to support the era of university independence? E3S Web Conf 2022;359:02032. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202235902032. Article
• 27. Copeland J. The transfer code of practice: overview and updates. Ser Libr 2019;76:159-61.https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526x.2019.1540267. Article
• 28. Fein C. Multidimensional journal evaluation of PLOS ONE. Libri 2013;63:259-71.https://doi.org/10.1515/libri-2013-0021. Article
• 29. Lukman L, Dimyati M, Rianto Y, et al. Proposal of the Sscore for measuring the performance of researchers, institutions, and journals in Indonesia. Sci Ed 2018;5:135-41.https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.138. Article
• 30. Bianchi F, Grimaldo F, Squazzoni F. The F3-index. Valuing reviewers for scholarly journals. J Informetr 2019;13:78-86.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.11.007. Article
• 31. Veretennik E, Yudkevich M. Inconsistent quality signals: evidence from the regional journals. Scientometrics 2023;128:3675-701.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04723-4. ArticlePubMedPMC
• 32. Janairo JI. Reviving a scientific journal: challenges and strategies. Sci Ed 2018;5:59-61.https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.120. Article
• 33. Rapple C. Insights continuous publication case study. Insights 2019;32:14. https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.466. Article
• 34. Minayo MC. The power to make history by disseminating science. Cien Saude Colet 2020;25:4651-60.https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-812320202512.22382020. ArticlePubMed
• 35. Lui W. Advancing the student‐oriented model of academic publishing: the case of legal studies in Hong Kong. Learn Publ 2022;35:376-84.https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1481. Article
• 36. Babor T, Tsiboukli A, Hellman M, Bahji A. Ways to get a more balanced gender representation in addiction journals’ management and workforce. Nordisk Alkohol Nark 2023;40:560-7.https://doi.org/10.1177/14550725231181440. ArticlePubMedPMC
• 37. Stoimenov A. Reliability or liability in the contemporary mathematics publishing process? An ethical and technological case study. Cogent Soc Sci 2023;9:2244259. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2244259. Article

Figure & Data

References

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by