Publishing Strategy in Times of Crisis

By Kevin Lomangino, Director, KGL Consulting

Every decade or so, scholarly publishing is forced to adapt to disruption. Over the past 30 years we’ve weathered the digital transition, the Great Recession, and the rise of new business models.

But today’s crisis is different. We’re not just facing economic or technological change—we’re watching the infrastructure of science itself come under political threat.

In this kind of environment, it’s natural to feel the urge to rethink everything. But as consultants, we are advising our clients mostly to resist that impulse.

The challenge for many societies and publishers isn’t a lack of vision; it’s a lack of consistent and robust execution on the strategies already in place.

Closing the Strategy-Execution Gap

Disruption doesn’t always require reinvention. Often, it demands focus. Many organizations already have strong strategic ideas on paper: to expand globally, to build more inclusive editorial teams, to improve operational efficiency. But those ideas remain underdeveloped, sidelined by competing priorities or lack of urgency. Today’s challenges demand that we move those strategies off the back burner.

Globalization as Strategic Imperative

One clear example is the need for greater geographic diversity. At many US society journals, editorial boards (and especially leadership) remain heavily U.S.-centric, even as the volume and quality of research from the Global South continues to grow. U.S.-based journals must be more intentional about recruiting international editors, cultivating global author pipelines, and reducing reliance on U.S. institutional infrastructure. This is especially urgent at a time when that infrastructure is being politicized and, in some cases, actively undermined.

Reassessing Scope for Relevance

Another priority is scope. Many journals are operating with outdated or overly narrow scopes that limit the flow of good content. Now is the time to re-evaluate whether existing scope statements reflect the research that matters to the community. Expanding a journal’s scope thoughtfully can attract more high-quality submissions, support early-career researchers working in emerging areas, and reinforce the journal’s relevance.

Rethinking Peer Review Management

Operational efficiency is also essential, especially in peer review. Editorial teams are stretched thin. Authors are frustrated by long delays. Societies should be seriously considering whether their current workflows are sustainable.

One of the most immediate opportunities is outsourcing peer review management tasks such as manuscript check-in, inboxing, and author/reviewer correspondence. Many societies have resisted taking this step, fearful that it will reduce service to their author community. But in many cases we’ve seen the opposite can actually occur: reduction in bottlenecks, improved consistency, and editorial staff freed up for more strategic work.

A more advanced option is to engage trained subject matter experts—often postdocs or early-career PhDs—to manage initial triage and desk review. This prevents “junk” manuscripts from clogging up your editorial pipeline and allows editors and reviewers to focus their attention on the most promising content. It can help reduce workloads—and possibly costs—and makes it easier to find and evaluate the higher quality work from emerging areas.

Coordinating Across the Portfolio

For societies with multiple journals, more advanced structural changes may be worth exploring. A centralized portfolio Editor-in-Chief model is becoming more attractive as a way to reduce redundancy, align strategy across titles, and provide clearer editorial leadership. While this isn’t usually the first step toward efficiency, it’s a compelling next move for organizations that have already addressed more immediate operational issues.

The Case for Urgency

What holds many organizations back is not a lack of good ideas but a lack of clarity on how to execute them. That’s where external guidance can make the difference. At KGL Consulting, we work with societies to translate their priorities into action—whether that means attracting more global content, expanding journal scope, streamlining peer review, or restructuring multi-title programs.

None of these strategies are new. But in times of uncertainty, the question isn’t whether to develop new plans—it’s whether we have the resolve to implement the ones we already believe in. Strategy, in the end, is about choice. And the most important choice societies can make right now is to act with urgency and intention.

If you’re ready to move your publishing strategy from intention to implementation, please reach out to us today.

Kevin Lomangino is Director of KGL Consulting, a leading consultancy serving the scholarly publishing community. Email us at info@kwglobal.com.