A usable governance register for a new scholarly journal

1. Distinguish policy, procedure and evidence

A public policy tells authors what the journal does. An internal procedure tells staff how to carry it out. Evidence records what actually happened in a case. For example, an appeals policy may name the appeal route; the procedure identifies an independent decision-maker; the case record preserves the request, assessment and response. Each layer answers a different question.

Use the transparency principles as a coverage reference for public policies on governance, review, ethics, fees, access and preservation. They do not appoint a responsible person inside the journal. The register must name the owner and approval route that apply to this operation.

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

2. Create a register with owners and triggers

For every document record its purpose, public or restricted audience, owner, approving role, current version, effective date, next review trigger and evidence location. A review trigger can be a changed provider, a revised fee or a newly identified process failure; an annual calendar reminder alone may miss an urgent change.

Keep policy approval separate from permission to edit the website. The person publishing a page should be able to identify the approved wording and verify the final rendering in both languages. If the Arabic and English terms conflict, correct the inconsistency through the policy owner rather than silently allowing two different promises.

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

3. Put authority where staff can find it

ICMJE recommends an appointment contract stating the editor’s duties, authority and mechanisms for resolving conflict. Use the agreed authority as the basis for the internal delegation map.

Write down who can assign an editor, request an additional assessment, approve a correction, handle a complaint about the editor and communicate with an institution. Record alternates for absence and conflict. The route should not end at a person who is the subject of the complaint. A small organisation may combine roles, but it still needs an independent route for the cases those combinations create.

Reference: ICMJE: journal owners and editorial freedom

4. Rehearse a sponsor-related submission

In this fictional scenario, a sponsor asks a journal employee to secure acceptance of a manuscript written by a board member. The journal has approved editorial independence and conflict procedures, but has not yet tested the substitute-editor account. The exercise must not be recorded as a successful rehearsal until that route works.

The employee records the request privately and routes it to the authorised editorial lead. A conflicted decision-maker steps aside under the adopted procedure. The designated independent editor receives only the access needed for the case and assesses the manuscript through the ordinary process. The sponsor receives an explanation of the decision boundary, not confidential review material.

5. Protect records without making unsupported promises

Decide which editorial records are required, who can access them and how long they are retained under the journal’s actual obligations. Avoid a generic “we keep nothing” statement if the process retains correspondence or review history. Equally, do not retain sensitive material indefinitely merely because storage is available. Have the responsible office review the concrete schedule and provider arrangements.

For published content, distinguish a preservation arrangement from the ability to restore the working service. PKP’s Preservation Network describes long-term preservation of OJS content with access following a trigger event. Keep its eligibility and deposit evidence separate from the journal’s backup and restoration records. A configured plugin or an archive file does not by itself prove that either process succeeded.

Reference: PKP: Preservation Network

6. Approve, publish and verify the same version

Before launch, choose a sample author journey and follow the links to the relevant policies from the real submission pages. Confirm that fee terms, review descriptions, contact routes and language versions agree. Retain the approved source text and the date of public readback so that a later change can be traced.

When a policy changes, record why, who approved it and how it affects existing submissions. Keep superseded versions available internally and describe material changes publicly where appropriate. The governance register is complete only for the scope actually checked; unresolved approvals, inaccessible routes and untested recovery steps remain visible tasks.

Questions for a practical final check

• Policies, procedures and case evidence have distinct locations.
• Every document has an owner, version and approval route.
• Conflicts and complaints have an independent path.
• The scenario was exercised through actual permissions.
• Retention and provider commitments have responsible review.
• Published Arabic and English match the approved version.