Society journal publishing: compare responsibilities before choosing a partner

1. Separate ownership from operating work

Begin with an asset-and-authority register: journal title, domain, published files, source files, editorial records, identifier administration, subscriber records where applicable and public policy approval. Record who controls each item today and what access a future supplier would receive. A logo on a website cannot establish contractual ownership.

ICMJE describes distinct responsibilities for owners and editors and supports editorial authority over individual content decisions. Make that separation visible in the proposed arrangement. The society’s budget approval should not create a commercial veto over an individual manuscript. Ask the responsible institutional office to review the actual contract, data responsibilities and applicable obligations; this worksheet is preparation for that review.

Reference: ICMJE: journal owners and editorial freedom

2. Request comparable service descriptions

A hosting quotation and a full publishing quotation cover different work. Ask each bidder to mark included, excluded or separately priced for submission support, editorial-office administration, copyediting, typesetting, accessibility, metadata, preservation support and author enquiries. Name the language coverage and the party who signs off corrections. “Bilingual support” could mean only a translated menu.

Use the same fictional sample manuscript for demonstrations, with no confidential author or participant material. Include an Arabic affiliation, a table, a reference correction and a revised figure. Observe the resulting files and the handoff. A slide describing XML capability does not show that the proposed service can produce an accurate export for this journal.

3. Compare evidence and retained workload

In this fictional exercise, a society has volunteer editors but no production employee. Supplier A offers hosting only; supplier B offers hosting and specified production work. Neither has yet demonstrated a complete export. The table describes these invented proposals, not the performance of real organisations.

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

4. Build a budget that survives a quiet year

Separate fixed costs, charges per submission, charges per accepted article and exceptional work. Ask what happens if the journal receives fewer manuscripts than expected, publishes a large supplement or needs to correct an old article. Use the society’s own volume scenarios; label estimates and avoid treating a revenue forecast as an editorial acceptance target.

Include staff time retained by the society, renewal terms, data export fees, termination assistance and any work needed to rebuild the service. Keep taxes and local financial treatment pending until confirmed by the responsible office. A numerical comparison is useful only when its units, currency, period and exclusions match. Do not assign invented percentage weights and call the result an objective vendor ranking.

5. Test continuity before agreeing to dependence

NISO’s 2026 Transfer Code of Practice addresses continuity of access when journals move between parties. Use its current publication as a starting point for transfer questions, not as evidence that a bidder endorses or follows it.

Ask for a test export, a list of files and records it includes, a proposed receiving environment and a demonstration that a sample article can be opened after transfer. Keep published content, confidential review records and access credentials in separate handoff plans. Clarify who updates identifiers and public links, who can authorise those changes and how readers are informed.

Preservation requires its own evidence. PKP describes its Preservation Network as a dark archive whose preserved content becomes accessible after a trigger event. That purpose differs from restoring the society’s day-to-day publishing service. Ask for both preservation status and an operational recovery rehearsal rather than treating one as proof of the other.

Reference: NISO RP-24-2026: Transfer Code of Practice, version 5.0 · PKP: Preservation Network

6. Write the decision with unresolved conditions

Prepare a short decision record naming the chosen operating model, reasons, retained responsibilities, evidence examined, unresolved conditions and who may sign. Attach the actual service schedule rather than relying on a marketing page. Give every unresolved condition a responsible person and a response date.

After onboarding, read back the public policies, first completed article and available exports against the agreement. A signed contract establishes obligations; it does not prove that delivery has occurred. Review the arrangement when ownership, fees, technology or editorial leadership changes, and maintain a usable exit record throughout the relationship.

Questions for a practical final check

• Ownership and operating services are recorded separately.
• Quotes cover comparable work and languages.
• Retained society labour appears in the budget.
• Editorial authority remains explicit.
• Export, link continuity and recovery have separate evidence.
• Unresolved conditions remain visible in the decision.