Academic journals in 2025 - Featured

Academic Journals in 2025: A Guide for Survival

by

Table of Contents

Introduction

Academic journal publishing has never been easy. But as we settle into 2025, what used to be slow-moving tectonic shifts have turned into a full-blown earthquake. Publishers, editors, and scholarly communication managers are grappling with open access mandates, AI-generated submissions, shrinking funding, and the ghost of predatory publishing. The peer review system groans under pressure, and everyone is looking for scalable, ethical, and sustainable solutions.

The days when journals could rely solely on prestige and legacy are long gone. Today, survival hinges on agility, innovation, and ruthless honesty about what works and what doesn’t. This article aims to offer a comprehensive roadmap—not a sugar-coated listicle—for those who run scholarly journals and intend to keep them credible, relevant, and discoverable in this rapidly evolving ecosystem.

Open Access: Mandates, Models, and Mayhem

The push for open access (OA) has moved from polite advocacy to hard policy. Funders across Europe, North America, and Asia have enforced open access mandates that are no longer optional. Plan S, cOAlition S, and institutional agreements are now shaping how and where scholars publish. The problem? The model is still a mess.

Gold OA relies heavily on article processing charges (APCs), which many institutions in the Global South—and even some in the North—simply can’t afford. Diamond OA, free for both authors and readers, sounds ideal, but often lacks a sustainable revenue stream. Hybrid models are increasingly criticized as double-dipping.

For journals to survive, clarity and transparency are paramount. If you’re charging APCs, explain what they cover. If you’re Diamond OA, don’t rely on goodwill alone—develop institutional partnerships, grants, or service-based funding mechanisms. Avoid moralizing and start strategizing. The world has already moved; catch up or fade away.

The AI Tsunami: Friend or Foe?

Generative AI tools like ChatGPT and Claude are flooding editorial inboxes with submissions—some of them shockingly polished, others a Frankenstein’s monster of regurgitated content. AI detectors aren’t foolproof, and neither are peer reviewers. For journal editors, the AI wave can’t be ignored or wished away.

Editorial boards must establish clear AI policies. Not just a disclaimer tacked onto your submission guidelines, but real, enforceable policies about acceptable use, authorship attribution, and data transparency. Is AI-assisted writing acceptable if disclosed? What if the methodology section were entirely machine-generated? These aren’t hypothetical questions anymore.

Journals should also explore how AI can assist, not just threaten. From automated language editing to metadata tagging and reviewer suggestions, AI can streamline tedious tasks—if you let it. But beware of over-reliance. The credibility of your journal still depends on critical human judgment, not just a shiny tool.

The Peer Review Crisis: Burnout, Bias, and Broken Systems

Let’s face it: the peer review process is cracking. Reviewer fatigue, ghosting, and non-responsiveness are rampant. The average review time has ballooned, and editors are spending more time chasing reviewers than managing quality.

Some journals have turned to incentives—publons, reviewer recognition programs, or even honoraria—to lure academics into reviewing. Others are experimenting with open peer review or cascading reviews, but none of these are magic bullets.

It’s time for journals to professionalize their reviewer database. Keep track of who delivers, who flakes, and who consistently offers shallow feedback. Use technology to monitor quality and deadlines, but don’t forget the human touch. A personal thank-you, even a well-timed nudge, can do wonders.

Indexing, Impact, and the Fetish of Metrics

Let’s talk about the elephant in the room: everyone wants to get into Scopus or Web of Science, but few are willing to do the grunt work it takes to get there. High rejection rates, weak editorial policies, sloppy citations—these are the culprits, not some hidden conspiracy.

To survive in 2025, journals must treat indexing as a long-term commitment, not a one-off application. Tighten your editorial standards, publish consistently, and audit your citation practices. Use tools like Crossref and DOIs properly. Ensure your metadata is rich and structured. Review your author and editorial diversity.

Impact isn’t just about the Impact Factor anymore. Altmetrics, downloads, and social media mentions—these all contribute to a journal’s visibility. But don’t get seduced by vanity metrics. Track them, yes, but stay grounded in academic rigor. There’s no shortcut to quality.

Ethics and Predatory Publishing: Drawing the Line

Predatory journals aren’t just a nuisance; they’re a threat to the credibility of academic publishing as a whole. Unfortunately, the line between legitimate and predatory is increasingly blurry. Some so-called predatory journals are more efficient than their traditional counterparts; some legacy journals are surprisingly opaque.

Journals must take a hard stance on transparency. Declare your peer review process. Publish editorial board names and affiliations. Be open about fees and archiving policies. If you’re aiming to be seen as legitimate, act like it. Apply for DOAJ, COPE membership, or even think about Seal qualifications.

Also, don’t be afraid to collaborate. Regional associations, university presses, and nonprofit consortia can help raise the bar collectively. You’re not alone—but you do have to act.

Digital Infrastructure: SEO, Discoverability, and Metadata

Your content might be brilliant, but if Google Scholar can’t find it, it might as well not exist. In 2025, digital discoverability isn’t a bonus—it’s oxygen. Yet many journals are still stuck with clunky websites, outdated XML files, and laughably poor metadata.

Invest in robust digital publishing platforms—OJS 3, Janeway, Scholastica, or a well-maintained proprietary system. Make sure your journal’s website is mobile-friendly, fast-loading, and structured for both readers and crawlers. Optimize titles, abstracts, and keywords. Submit sitemaps. Tag everything properly.

And please, stop treating metadata like an afterthought. Proper XML formatting, ORCID integration, funder identifiers (like Crossref’s Funder Registry), and license metadata are essential. They’re not geeky extras—they’re the backbone of your journal’s digital life.

Financial Models That Work (And Don’t)

Many journals still depend on university subsidies or a shoestring budget managed by one heroic editor. That’s not a business model—it’s a slow death.

Explore diversified revenue strategies. APCs are one option, but risky if poorly managed. Membership models, institutional partnerships, grants, and advertising (done ethically) are viable alternatives. Some journals are experimenting with print-on-demand, conference tie-ins, or publishing services for affiliated centers.

The goal isn’t profit—it’s sustainability. What pays the bills while maintaining your editorial integrity? Think in terms of service value: what do you offer your community, and what can they offer in return? The answer will vary, but the question must be asked.

Editorial Boards and Governance: From Decoration to Direction

Too many editorial boards are ceremonial, offering little input and even less accountability. In 2025, you need a board that works, not just lends prestige.

Set expectations. Assign roles—handling editors, section editors, reviewers-in-chief. Rotate memberships to avoid stagnation. Bring in junior scholars with fresh eyes and digital fluency. Diversity—geographical, gender, institutional—isn’t just an ESG checkbox. It’s strategic.

Editorial boards should be involved in strategy, ethics, policy enforcement, and future planning. Don’t reduce them to a list of names. Use them.

Submission Systems and Author Experience

Let’s be honest: most journal submission systems still feel like a bureaucratic trap. If authors need a manual to submit, you’re doing it wrong.

Streamline the process. Use modern systems that support ORCID login, reference formatting tools, and drag-and-drop uploads. Communicate clearly and frequently. Provide submission tracking. Humanize your communication—robotic emails don’t make authors feel valued.

Good submission systems don’t just serve the editor—they serve the author. And happy authors return. Bitter ones don’t.

Training, Professionalization, and the Human Element

Publishing is a profession, not a volunteer gig. Yet too many journals rely on untrained volunteers or overworked academics to manage complex editorial workflows. That’s unsustainable.

Invest in training. Provide onboarding for new editors and reviewers. Attend workshops. Subscribe to COPE, OASPA, or INASP resources. Create internal SOPs. Professionalize the journal office, even if it’s virtual.

You don’t need a staff of twenty, but you do need people who know what they’re doing—and are treated as professionals. Quality doesn’t happen by accident.

Conclusion

Surviving in academic publishing in 2025 isn’t about weathering a storm. It’s about accepting that the storm is the new climate. There’s no going back to slower, simpler times. But there is a way forward.

That way involves strategic open access planning, ethical AI use, revived peer review systems, discoverability-first infrastructure, and financial sustainability. It also requires something more elusive: humility, adaptability, and a willingness to rethink how journals serve their scholarly communities.

For journals, the choice is clear—evolve or become irrelevant. The clock’s ticking.

Leave a comment