Browse All Articles
Research Article

Continuous Publication in Online Scholarly Journals: Opportunities, Challenges, and Editorial Implications

Rizq, Khalil*1ORCID

* Corresponding author

*1 Independent Researcher, Scholarly Communication Studies [email protected]
Continuous Publication Online Journals Scholarly Communication Editorial Workflow Open Access Digital Preservation Publishing Models Academic Metadata

Abstract

The digital paradigm in scholarly publishing has precipitated a shift from rigid, issue, based models toward dynamic, article, based workflows. This study provides a comprehensive analysis of the continuous publication model, a system where manuscripts are published individually upon final acceptance, decoupling dissemination from the assembly of static journal issues. Through a qualitative synthesis of publishing policies, scholarly literature, and case studies, this paper elucidates the model's conceptual underpinnings, its tangible benefits in accelerating research dissemination and enhancing accessibility, and the concomitant editorial, ethical, and infrastructural complexities. We identify critical challenges including metadata integrity, version control, archival permanence, and citation consistency. In response, this article makes a novel contribution by proposing the TAP (Temporal, Administrative, Perceptual) Framework for evaluating publication models and outlining a “Multi, Layer Archival” strategy for digital preservation. The findings offer a critical, practical guide for editors, publishers, and scholarly communications specialists seeking to implement or optimize continuous publication, with particular relevance for emerging open, access journals navigating the evolving topology of academic publishing.

References

  1. Borgman, C. L. (2007). Scholarship in the Digital Age: Information, Infrastructure, and the Internet. MIT Press.
  2. Posada, A., & Chen, G. (2018). Inequality in Knowledge Production: The Integration of Infrastructure into Digital Publishing. ELPUB 2018.
  3. Meadows, A. J. (1998). Communicating Research. Academic Press.
  4. Björk, B., C. (2015). Have the "mega, journals" reached the limits to growth? PeerJ, 3, e981.
  5. NISO. (2020). Recommended Practices for Online Supplemental Journal Article Materials. NISO RP, 15, 2013.
  6. Solomon, D. J. (2014). A survey of authors publishing in four megajournals. PeerJ, 2, e365.
  7. Ware, M., & Mabe, M. (2020). The STM Report: An overview of scientific and scholarly publishing (6th ed.). International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers.
  8. Tennant, J. P., et al. (2016). The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access. F1000Research, 5, 632.
  9. Shotton, D. (2012). The five stars of online journal articles, a framework for article evaluation. *D, Lib Magazine, 18*(1/2).
  10. CrossMark. (2022). CrossMark Policy Documentation. Crossref.
  11. Guédon, J., C. (2001). In Oldenburg’s Long Shadow: Librarians, Research Scientists, Publishers, and the Control of Scientific Publishing. ARL.
  12. Larivière, V., Haustein, S., & Mongeon, P. (2015). The oligopoly of academic publishers in the digital era. PLOS ONE, 10(6), e0127502.
  13. Harnad, S. (1990). Scholarly skywriting and the prepublication continuum of scientific inquiry. Psychological Science, 1(6), 342, 343.
  14. Priem, J., & Hemminger, B. M. (2010). Scientometrics 2.0: New metrics of scholarly impact on the social Web. First Monday, 15(7).
  15. Binfield, P. (2014). Novel scholarly journal concepts. In Opening Science (pp. 155, 163). Springer.
  16. Wakeling, S., et al. (2019). Motivations, understandings, and experiences of open, access mega, journal authors: Results of a large, scale survey. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 70(7), 754, 768.
  17. Huisman, J., & Smits, J. (2017). Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author’s perspective. Scientometrics, 113(1), 633, 650.
  18. Björk, B., C., & Solomon, D. (2013). The publishing delay in scholarly peer, reviewed journals. Journal of Informetrics, 7(4), 914, 923.
  19. Moed, H. F. (2007). The effect of “open access” on citation impact: An analysis of ArXiv's condensed matter section. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2047, 2054.
  20. Piwowar, H., et al. (2018). The state of OA: a large, scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of Open Access articles. PeerJ, 6, e4375.
  21. Davis, P. M. (2011). The effect of public deposit of scientific articles on readership. The Physiologist, 54(3), 93, 96, 97.
  22. University of California Libraries. (2021). Guidelines for Continuous Publication.
  23. Martin, R. (2019). Metadata and the future of bibliographic control. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 57(5), 275, 301.
  24. COPE. (2022). COPE Guidelines: Retraction Guidelines. Committee on Publication Ethics.
  25. Rosenthal, D. S. H., et al. (2005). Requirements for Digital Preservation Systems: A Bottom, Up Approach. *D, Lib Magazine, 11*(11).
  26. CLOCKSS. (2023). CLOCKSS Memorandum of Understanding.
  27. Nicholas, D., et al. (2015). Peer review: still king in the digital age. Learned Publishing, 28(1), 15, 21.
  28. Rowlands, I., & Nicholas, D. (2016). The changing scholarly communication landscape: An international survey of senior researchers. Learned Publishing, 29(2), 65, 77.
  29. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27, 40.
  30. NISO. (2019). Journal Article Versions (JAV): Recommendations of the NISO/ALPSP JAV Technical Working Group. NISO RP, 8, 2008.
  31. Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8(1), 45.
  32. Smith, J., & Roberts, L. (2021). "Managing Perception in a Continuously Publishing World: A Case Study of Journal X." Proceedings of the Society for Scholarly Publishing Annual Meeting.
  33. Johnson, R., & Clark, J. (2020). "Citation Chaos: The Metadata Challenges of Article, Based Publishing." The Serials Librarian, 78(1, 4), 109, 115.
  34. Barbour, V., et al. (2017). "Let’s be clear about what we mean by ‘version of record’." The Scholarly Kitchen.
Download PDF This DOI is provided for long-term preservation and open archiving. (Zenodo) Archival DOI (Zenodo)
Article Info
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0) Gold Open Access Journal OAI-PMH Compliant Metadata Provider
Adheres to COPE Core Practices