Originally published on eve.gd on 24 July 2012, last updated 6 September 2026.
Read this post on the web (with images, PDF and citation details)
Kent Anderson recently wrote a post over at Scholarly Kitchen entitled "A Proposed List — 60 Things Journal Publishers Do". I think this list needs a little mythbusting: I agree with some of the points, think others need qualifying and that others are just hands-down false. So here's my rundown:
A Proposed List — 60 Things Journal Publishers Do
I also want to add a qualifier: "things publishers do" isn't really good enough. It should be: "things that only publishers can do" or "things publishers do, that researchers don't or can't". I have marked as "false" those aspects that apply to any business, rather than actually contributing to what publishers do. If somebody came up to you, trying to sell you their service, and they said: "what we can do for you is to manage our sales force and have our own prestigious offices", there would be nothing for you to buy, so I'm really not counting those.
In fact, most of these points, in my take, are "True, but...": they've been presented here in such a way that, yes, publishers do them, but they are perhaps either not needed or are spun in such a way as to inflate their importance.
Number | True/False | Researchers do already? | Researchers could do? | Qualifying remarks
1 | True | Yes | Yes | Detecting our needs. I think we already know this (or what would they be detecting?). This could uncharitably be re-worked as: "figuring out what will make us money" and nobody ever paid for that before
2 | True | No | Yes | Not hard. ISSN assignment is free.
3 | True | No | No | I think we should be moving away from article brand and instead focusing on article-level branding.
4 | True | No | No | I'm sceptical on this. I think journal reputation is actually a proxy measure (one short of financial abstraction) for academic capital, not the effort of the publisher.
5 | True (with qualification) | No | No | I think the costs are highly inflated in most publisher estimations. The actual costs of running an online Open Access journal, minus staff time, are small. If you want to factor in staff, then sure, but these could be relocated in-house and thus avoid the profit motive in publishing.
6 | True | No | Yes | Yes, infrastructures require setup and maintenance, but it's hardly rocket science, as I showed in my recent OA guide.
7 | True | Yes | Yes | We can all write a CFP...
8 | True | Yes | Yes | Academics actually already know how to reject submissions...
9 | True | Yes | Yes | Likewise, we can accept papers...
10 | True | Yes | Yes | No qualms, except that we can do this also.
11 | True | No | Yes | OK: definitely some scope for work on this. Think publishers have the edge here.
12 | False | No | No | I think this is pure PR-speak. This is true in one sense: most journals do this. However, most authors I suspect would prefer, certainly in my case, that they didn't! The copyright transfer terms for most publishers are barbaric and clearly only designed to restrict dissemination and further their business model. Marking as false for this reason</td> </tr> 13 True No Yes Knowing the right people to edit and review a journal; scholars do this in our own disciplines 14 True (to some degree) No Yes I've never seen a public acknowledgement of my help as a reviewer. I've further only had communication when they wanted a review. 15 True/False No Yes Very little "training" takes place and it's mostly "read the help docs". OJS provides such help documentation already, for free. That's the false part. Where I agree is that asking the right questions leads to good responses and publishers do this. 16 True No Yes This is too far from my discipline to really comment, so I'll concede this one. 17 True No Yes As per 16 18 True No Yes OK, so publishers do train editors, but it's only from experience. An editor could then train another editor. You can see where I'm going with this 19 True No Yes Anybody who's run a scholar-publisher enterprise knows that we need meetings... 20 True No Yes Again, OJS provides a very good structure to cope with variations in peer review process. 21 True No Yes Publishers do this, but free journal software also provides most of what's needed to keep up to date in this area 22 True No Yes This falls under many of the same "author declaration" type material. You need to write the agreement once and make sure that authors sign it 23 True No Yes A good editor is hard to find. Again, it seems to me that much of this is only opaque because it is outside the academy and once the knowledge is in-house, this changes 24 True No Yes I have no experience of this, but I note that it's only "some high-end journals" that provide this facility. No illustrators for you plebs! 25 True No Yes No qualms with this one, but I do query how frequently this occurs beyond normal proofreading 26 True No Yes As per 25 27 True No Yes There is a lot to layout editing that is technical. It is feasible to work it out, but, as I've detailed, it's not a trivial process. Definitely publisher value here 28 True No Yes As per 27 29 True/False No Yes I'm sure some do deploy this. Others, though, completely rely on author tagging 30 True No Yes As the original notes, this is absolutely trivial. 31 True No Yes Seriously. Don't try and game Google. It's such a waste of time. Just make good content and it will be ranked according to its worth 32 False No Yes Maybe true in some areas, but I haven't seen this in a long while. Rapid publication = a year and a half wait in the humanities 33 True No Yes Publishers publish? Really? Never knew that... (!) 34 True No Yes As journals move online, I think print will become obsolete for this format 35 True No Yes See 34 36 True, but... No Yes It seems to me that most publisher-media relations are about publishers covering their own backs and pushing their brand, rarely about pushing for an author's own brand 37 True No Yes We can all work a Facebook and Twitter account. Some publishers do this very badly, also! 38 False No Yes Hosting platforms are only expensive because publishers are using proprietary systems, rather than improving open source efforts for their own, and other people's, purposes. OJS costs $0 39 True No Yes OK, yes, you do this. Patching isn't that fun 40 True sometimes No Yes Most journals I read don't have comments. I also debate the value of comments, the web is a distributed system, so go write somewhere else 41 True No Yes 42 True No Yes A good publisher watches for these things. I wonder how many fall in that "good" category... 43 False No Yes Well, it's true, but this is no different to running any other company, so can hardly count in this debate! 44 True No Yes Yes, information security is important. Does also apply to any company keeping any records, though 45 True No Yes As per 44 46 True No Perhaps OK, I wouldn't like to respond to legal action and I'm glad someone can do this. 47 False No Yes Marked as false because, as with other entries on this list, this applies to *any* company, not just publishers 48 True, but rationale false No Yes Actually, what about a non-profit, OA business model? "Whatever your business model" is too broad. A non-commercial system doesn't need to do this 49 False No Yes See 48 and others for generic business practice 50 True No Yes If non-commercial, may not apply 51 True No Yes See 50 52 True, but... No Yes See 50 53 False No Yes As per all generic business practice, having somewhere to exist is not enough in this game. Trying to justify prices on the fact that you're expected to have prestigious offices? Bah. 54 True No Yes Scholars also have to keep on top of developments, though 55 True, but... No Yes Again, this seems more of an effort that is required to make sure publishers tap markets for profit, rather than being crucial to scholarly communication 56 True, but... No Yes See 50 57 True, but... No Yes See 50 58 True, but... No Yes See 50 59 True No Yes 60 True No Yes There is a lot to layout editing that is technical. It is feasible to work it out, but, as I've detailed, it's not a trivial process. Definitely publisher value here </table>
13 | True | No | Yes | Knowing the right people to edit and review a journal; scholars do this in our own disciplines
14 | True (to some degree) | No | Yes | I've never seen a public acknowledgement of my help as a reviewer. I've further only had communication when they wanted a review.
15 | True/False | No | Yes | Very little "training" takes place and it's mostly "read the help docs". OJS provides such help documentation already, for free. That's the false part. Where I agree is that asking the right questions leads to good responses and publishers do this.
16 | True | No | Yes | This is too far from my discipline to really comment, so I'll concede this one.
17 | True | No | Yes | As per 16
18 | True | No | Yes | OK, so publishers do train editors, but it's only from experience. An editor could then train another editor. You can see where I'm going with this
19 | True | No | Yes | Anybody who's run a scholar-publisher enterprise knows that we need meetings...
20 | True | No | Yes | Again, OJS provides a very good structure to cope with variations in peer review process.
21 | True | No | Yes | Publishers do this, but free journal software also provides most of what's needed to keep up to date in this area
22 | True | No | Yes | This falls under many of the same "author declaration" type material. You need to write the agreement once and make sure that authors sign it
23 | True | No | Yes | A good editor is hard to find. Again, it seems to me that much of this is only opaque because it is outside the academy and once the knowledge is in-house, this changes
24 | True | No | Yes | I have no experience of this, but I note that it's only "some high-end journals" that provide this facility. No illustrators for you plebs!
25 | True | No | Yes | No qualms with this one, but I do query how frequently this occurs beyond normal proofreading
26 | True | No | Yes | As per 25
27 | True | No | Yes | There is a lot to layout editing that is technical. It is feasible to work it out, but, as I've detailed, it's not a trivial process. Definitely publisher value here
28 | True | No | Yes | As per 27
29 | True/False | No | Yes | I'm sure some do deploy this. Others, though, completely rely on author tagging
30 | True | No | Yes | As the original notes, this is absolutely trivial.
31 | True | No | Yes | Seriously. Don't try and game Google. It's such a waste of time. Just make good content and it will be ranked according to its worth
32 | False | No | Yes | Maybe true in some areas, but I haven't seen this in a long while. Rapid publication = a year and a half wait in the humanities
33 | True | No | Yes | Publishers publish? Really? Never knew that... (!)
34 | True | No | Yes | As journals move online, I think print will become obsolete for this format
35 | True | No | Yes | See 34
36 | True, but... | No | Yes | It seems to me that most publisher-media relations are about publishers covering their own backs and pushing their brand, rarely about pushing for an author's own brand
37 | True | No | Yes | We can all work a Facebook and Twitter account. Some publishers do this very badly, also!
38 | False | No | Yes | Hosting platforms are only expensive because publishers are using proprietary systems, rather than improving open source efforts for their own, and other people's, purposes. OJS costs $0
39 | True | No | Yes | OK, yes, you do this. Patching isn't that fun
40 | True sometimes | No | Yes | Most journals I read don't have comments. I also debate the value of comments, the web is a distributed system, so go write somewhere else
41 | True | No | Yes
42 | True | No | Yes | A good publisher watches for these things. I wonder how many fall in that "good" category...
43 | False | No | Yes | Well, it's true, but this is no different to running any other company, so can hardly count in this debate!
44 | True | No | Yes | Yes, information security is important. Does also apply to any company keeping any records, though
45 | True | No | Yes | As per 44
46 | True | No | Perhaps | OK, I wouldn't like to respond to legal action and I'm glad someone can do this.
47 | False | No | Yes | Marked as false because, as with other entries on this list, this applies to *any* company, not just publishers
48 | True, but rationale false | No | Yes | Actually, what about a non-profit, OA business model? "Whatever your business model" is too broad. A non-commercial system doesn't need to do this
49 | False | No | Yes | See 48 and others for generic business practice
50 | True | No | Yes | If non-commercial, may not apply
51 | True | No | Yes | See 50
52 | True, but... | No | Yes | See 50
53 | False | No | Yes | As per all generic business practice, having somewhere to exist is not enough in this game. Trying to justify prices on the fact that you're expected to have prestigious offices? Bah.
54 | True | No | Yes | Scholars also have to keep on top of developments, though
55 | True, but... | No | Yes | Again, this seems more of an effort that is required to make sure publishers tap markets for profit, rather than being crucial to scholarly communication
56 | True, but... | No | Yes | See 50
57 | True, but... | No | Yes | See 50
58 | True, but... | No | Yes | See 50
59 | True | No | Yes
60 | True | No | Yes | There is a lot to layout editing that is technical. It is feasible to work it out, but, as I've detailed, it's not a trivial process. Definitely publisher value here
This reference list has been generated, in many cases, through an automated process and may therefore contain errors or incomplete metadata. It is provided purely as assistance for finding the items mentioned within this post.
1. Anderson, Kent, ‘A Proposed List — 60 Things Journal Publishers Do’, The Scholarly Kitchen, 18 July 2012 <http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/07/18/a-proposed-list-60-things-journal-publishers-do/>
http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/07/18/a-proposed-list-60-things-journal-publishers-do/