Define a journal’s scope before inviting its first manuscripts

1. Start with a reader and a recurring question

Write one sentence naming who will use the journal and what they need to understand. “Health research” gives a handling editor little help. “Research informing the organisation and delivery of adult outpatient care” identifies a practical domain while leaving room for different methods. A regional focus can then specify the settings or transferability questions that matter; geography alone should not be presented as evidence of scientific importance.

Interview prospective readers or review the questions they already bring to a society meeting. Record these observations as exploratory input, with the number and roles of participants. Do not convert three enthusiastic conversations into a claim that the field lacks a journal. Compare the proposed remit with existing titles and explain the distinct contribution in concrete terms: language access, neglected settings, methods or a different readership.

2. Write boundaries that an editor can apply

The joint transparency principles call for visible aims, readership and eligible manuscript types. Use those headings as the public outline; the internal decision document should go further and describe difficult cases.

Separate topic fit from study adequacy. A well-conducted laboratory study may fall outside a service-delivery journal, while a poorly reported service evaluation may fit its topic but still need rejection. List the populations, settings and article types considered, then describe what falls outside the remit. Avoid wording that admits only statistically significant or favourable findings. Specify whether protocols, evidence syntheses, qualitative work and methodological reports are considered rather than leaving authors to infer it from a broad label.

Reference: COPE, DOAJ, OASPA and WAME: transparency principles, version 4

3. Rehearse three fictional submissions

Assume a proposed journal covers adult outpatient service organisation. Its draft policy considers original research and evidence syntheses, but does not currently offer a laboratory-science section. The following cases are fictional; a scope decision says nothing about whether the methods would pass review.

On small screens, scroll the table horizontally, or focus it and use the arrow keys.

4. Match the remit to available expertise

Build a small coverage map linking each proposed article type to a handling editor, a methods adviser and a route for finding independent reviewers. Names on an advisory page are not evidence that those people have accepted operational duties. Ask specifically about availability and conflicts before counting capacity.

A journal may choose a narrower initial remit if it lacks support for a specialist design. State the limitation openly and revisit it when capability changes. Alternatively, postpone the call while recruiting the missing expertise. Hiring a language editor does not resolve a gap in statistical or qualitative assessment. Keep those functions distinct in the map.

5. Make the call for papers match the submission system

Compare the approved scope with the actual article-type menu, author guidance and initial screening form. An invitation to submit protocols is misleading if the system has no protocol route and the instructions only describe completed studies. For Arabic and English calls, test the same hypothetical cases in each language; literal similarity is not enough if the boundaries differ.

Use a final readback table: public promise, operational owner, working link and last check. Put unconfirmed indexing, preservation arrangements and review-time aspirations in the planning file rather than advertising them as current facts. A call can honestly state what is open now and explain where authors should ask about an unusual study.

6. Review scope using reasons, not submission volume alone

After launch, retain a short, privacy-conscious log of scope questions and the policy version used. Separate “outside remit” from “within remit but insufficient evidence” and “cannot presently obtain suitable review”. Otherwise a single rejection total cannot show whether the scope is clear.

Schedule a discussion of recurring borderline cases. If the editors change the remit, date the new policy and explain how manuscripts already received will be handled. More submissions do not by themselves justify expansion. The useful outcome of this exercise is a stable explanation of who the journal serves, what it considers and who can assess the work.

Questions for a practical final check

• The reader and research question are identifiable.
• Topic fit and methodological adequacy are assessed separately.
• Three borderline cases have recorded reasons.
• Each offered article type has an operational review route.
• The Arabic call, English call and submission menu agree.
• The scope has an owner, version and review date.