pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.30394 · v1 · pith:RFK7HEHGnew · submitted 2026-06-29 · 💻 cs.DL · cs.SI

When Editors Revolt: Characterizing Journal Declarations of Independence

Saskia van Walsum , Lisa Matthias , Juan Pablo Alperin , Stefanie Haustein This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-30 03:02 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.DL cs.SI
keywords editorial boardsdeclarations of independencebreakaway journalszombie journalsacademic publishingBig Five publishersdiamond open access
0
0 comments X

The pith

Editorial boards declare independence from journals mainly over governance and business model concerns, especially at Big Five publishers.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper studies 39 cases since 1989 in which editorial boards resigned from a journal and started a competing new one, leaving behind what the authors call a zombie journal under new editors. It shows these declarations are driven by issues of publisher control and profit motives, with nearly all occurring at journals from the largest commercial publishers. The departing editors typically moved to smaller publishers and adopted diamond open-access models without author fees. A sympathetic reader would care because the pattern indicates rising editor frustration with commercial academic publishing and demonstrates that community-led alternatives can emerge as a response.

Core claim

Analysis of 39 breakaway-zombie journal pairs formed since 1989 shows that declarations of independence were motivated by concerns related to governance and business model and overwhelmingly happened at journals owned by the Big Five publishers. Breakaway editors tended to found new journals at smaller publishers and adopt diamond publishing models.

What carries the argument

The collection of 39 breakaway-zombie journal pairs together with the text of their declarations of independence, used to identify stated motivations and subsequent publishing choices.

If this is right

  • Breakaway editors move away from Big Five publishers toward smaller ones and diamond models.
  • Governance and business model dissatisfaction drives most independence declarations.
  • Community-led journal starts can serve as a practical response to commercial publishing practices.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the pattern continues, the share of journals controlled by large commercial publishers may decline over time.
  • Similar events in other disciplines could be tracked to test whether the trend is field-specific or general.
  • The findings suggest that non-profit models may become more attractive when editors gain collective leverage.

Load-bearing premise

The 39 identified pairs form a complete and representative sample of all such events since 1989, and the declarations reliably reflect the boards' actual motivations rather than later justifications.

What would settle it

Discovery of additional unreported breakaway events since 1989 or direct evidence that the declarations were shaped primarily for external audiences rather than internal reasons.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.30394 by Juan Pablo Alperin, Lisa Matthias, Saskia van Walsum, Stefanie Haustein.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Breakaway journals, by new publishing model in the first year of operation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Breakaway journal motives, in five-year increments 4.2 Disciplines The natural sciences accounted for 17 breakaway journals (44%), followed by humanities and the arts with 10 instances (26%) and the social sciences with 8 (20%). Within the natural sciences, mathematics was the source of more than half of breakaways, with the same number of declarations of independence as all of the humanities and the arts.… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Breakaways across disciplines, by motive 4.3 Publication Models As noted above, business models are a significant concern for the editors of breakaway journals [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Breakaway and zombie publishing models in the year of declaration [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Abandoned and destination publisher categories in the year of declaration [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

When editorial boards resign from their journals and publishers and declare their independence, two competing journals can result: the original journal under a new editorial board (a "zombie" journal), and a new journal established by the departing editors (a "breakaway"). The bibliometric community saw such an event when the board of Journal of Informetrics left Elsevier to found Quantitative Science Studies. We analyzed 39 breakaway-zombie journal pairs that have formed since 1989 and their declarations of independence to understand why and how they happen. Results show that declarations of independence were motivated by concerns related to governance and business model and overwhelmingly happened at journals owned by the Big Five publishers. Breakaway editors tended to found new journals at smaller publishers and adopt diamond publishing models. These findings suggest that dissatisfaction with commercial publishing models is growing, and that community-led alternatives can motivate change.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper identifies 39 breakaway-zombie journal pairs formed since 1989 after editorial board resignations and analyzes their declarations of independence. It claims that motivations center on governance and business-model concerns, that such events overwhelmingly involve journals from the Big Five publishers, and that breakaway editors typically move to smaller publishers and adopt diamond OA models.

Significance. If the sample construction and coding are shown to be reliable, the work supplies the first systematic characterization of these events and offers empirical grounding for claims about dissatisfaction with commercial publishing and the emergence of community-led alternatives.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods] Methods (or equivalent section describing sample construction): the manuscript supplies no information on identification criteria, search strategy, inclusion/exclusion rules, or completeness checks for the 39 pairs. Because the headline claims about Big-Five concentration and motivation patterns rest directly on this sample, the absence of these details prevents evaluation of selection bias.
  2. [Methods] Methods (or Results section on motivation coding): no description is given of the coding scheme for declarations, number of coders, or inter-coder reliability. Treating declarative text as a direct proxy for actual board motivations is load-bearing for the governance/business-model finding and requires explicit justification or triangulation.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states results from 39 pairs but does not preview the methods; a brief methods summary sentence would improve clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive feedback. The comments correctly identify gaps in the methods description that limit evaluability of the sample and coding. We will revise the manuscript to add the requested details on sample construction and motivation coding, including explicit discussion of limitations. This will strengthen the paper without altering its core claims.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods] Methods (or equivalent section describing sample construction): the manuscript supplies no information on identification criteria, search strategy, inclusion/exclusion rules, or completeness checks for the 39 pairs. Because the headline claims about Big-Five concentration and motivation patterns rest directly on this sample, the absence of these details prevents evaluation of selection bias.

    Authors: We agree that the current manuscript lacks a dedicated methods description for sample construction. In the revision we will insert a Methods section specifying: (1) the operational definition of a breakaway-zombie pair, (2) the multi-source search strategy (systematic web searches, prior literature on editorial board resignations, and targeted queries for known events since 1989), (3) inclusion/exclusion criteria (e.g., requiring a public declaration of independence and formation of both a zombie and breakaway journal), and (4) completeness checks (cross-verification against publisher announcements and news reports). This addition will enable assessment of selection bias. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methods] Methods (or Results section on motivation coding): no description is given of the coding scheme for declarations, number of coders, or inter-coder reliability. Treating declarative text as a direct proxy for actual board motivations is load-bearing for the governance/business-model finding and requires explicit justification or triangulation.

    Authors: We accept that the coding process must be documented. The revised manuscript will add: (a) the coding scheme (inductive categories derived from the declarations, with governance and business-model as primary codes), (b) that coding was performed independently by the two authors with discussion to resolve discrepancies, and (c) a limitations paragraph noting that the analysis captures stated motivations in public declarations rather than private deliberations, and that triangulation with interviews was not feasible for historical cases. We will not claim the declarations are exhaustive proxies but will frame the results as characterizing the content of the declarations themselves. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; descriptive empirical study with independent content

full rationale

This is a descriptive empirical study that identifies 39 historical breakaway-zombie journal pairs since 1989 via document analysis of declarations of independence. No equations, fitted parameters, predictions, or self-referential derivations appear. Results on motivations (governance/business model), publisher concentration, and post-breakaway choices follow directly from the sampled declarations and events without reduction to inputs by construction. Sample completeness and inference reliability are external validity concerns, not internal circularity. No self-citation load-bearing steps or other enumerated patterns are present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that the 39 pairs form a valid sample and that declarations accurately reflect motivations; no free parameters or invented entities are mentioned.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The 39 identified breakaway-zombie pairs since 1989 are representative of the broader phenomenon of journal declarations of independence.
    The study draws conclusions from this specific sample.
  • domain assumption Statements in declarations of independence provide a reliable window into the true motivations of the departing editorial boards.
    The analysis interprets these documents as evidence of governance and business-model concerns.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5683 in / 1324 out tokens · 87009 ms · 2026-06-30T03:02:58.711077+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Diamond Fractures: Tracing Journal Transitions Away from Diamond Open Access

    cs.DL 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    More than 440 journals transitioned away from diamond OA, predominantly to APC-based models, based on publisher records, DOAJ logs, and a survey.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

11 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    The bibliometric community saw such an event when the board of Journal of Informetrics left Elsevier to found Quantitative Science Studies

    1 When Editors Revolt: Characterizing Journal Declarations of Independence Saskia van Walsum*, Lisa Matthias** , Juan Pablo Alperin*** and Stefanie Haustein**** *svanw056@uottawa.ca https://orcid.org/0009-0003-6331-1666 School of Information Studies, University of Ottawa, Canada **lisa.matthias@hu-berin.de https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2612-2132 Berlin Scho...

    1989

  2. [2]

    Serials Crisis

    Introduction Despite their flaws and limitations, academic journals are crucial scaffolding for our system of scholarly communication. They help define disciplines and set research agendas, underpin the system of checks and balances that protect scientific integrity, and are a means of disseminating, archiving, and evaluating research (Fyfe et al., 2017, ...

    2017

  3. [3]

    declaration of independence

    When the editorial team of an existing journal collectively decides to leave their publisher and found a competing journal, the event is called a “declaration of independence” (Open Access Directory, 2024). The new journals have been referred to as "breakaway journals" (Wilson, 2016), while the original journals, now with a new editorial team, are known a...

    2024

  4. [4]

    These journals, and the posts and articles reporting on them, were used to develop search strings in Factiva, Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, Érudit, and Google

    Data 4 The data was collected by building on the existing list of breakaway journals from Open Access Directory (OAD) (Open Access Directory, 2024). These journals, and the posts and articles reporting on them, were used to develop search strings in Factiva, Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, Érudit, and Google. Searches were run in 2024 and again in 2025 to...

    2024

  5. [5]

    Eight journals not meeting these criteria were removed from the original OAD list, while the search uncovered an additional eight breakaway journals

    An explicit link is made by the editors and/or their academic community between their resignation and the founding of a new journal. Eight journals not meeting these criteria were removed from the original OAD list, while the search uncovered an additional eight breakaway journals. The final collection includes 39 instances of journal declarations of inde...

    1989

  6. [6]

    Details of coding strategy and coder agreement for discipline and motive are described in the corresponding sections below

    Methods For each of the 39 breakaway journals, the following information was taken from the documentation collected during the search: ● Year of the declaration of independence ● Zombie and breakaway journal titles ● Publishers of zombie and breakaway journals ● Zombie and breakaway publishing models ● Field of study ● Motive(s) While variables like year ...

    2023

  7. [7]

    This could include: • Being asked to review too many submissions • An excess of administrative work Two coders assigned motives to each of the 39 cases

    Workload: Concerns related to the editors’ workload. This could include: • Being asked to review too many submissions • An excess of administrative work Two coders assigned motives to each of the 39 cases. Their agreement was calculated using Krippendorff’s alpha, with Jaccard distance to account for the multiple possible values for each breakaway instanc...

    2006

  8. [8]

    This data reflects the publishing model chosen when the breakaway journal was established; journals may have transitioned to a different model in later years

    Results 4.1 Behaviour over time Figure 1 shows the total number of declarations of independence per year, by the new publishing model of the breakaway journal. This data reflects the publishing model chosen when the breakaway journal was established; journals may have transitioned to a different model in later years. Breakaways appear to have happened in ...

    1989

  9. [9]

    pushed back against publishing norms of the time by slashing their subscription prices, sometimes to less than half of what was charged at the remaining zombie, or introduced contribution models not captured by the categories above, such as an optional program in which individual institutions could pay more for their subscription in order to fund access f...

    2000

  10. [10]

    Funding Information This work was funded by the Volkswagen Foundation [Az.: 9C784] 14 References Anderson, R. (2026). So… IS the Essence of a Journal Portable? Checking in on _NeuroImage_ and _Imaging Neuroscience_. The Scholarly Kitchen. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2026/02/11/so-is-the-essence-of-a-journal-portable-checking-in-on-_neuroimage_-and...

    work page doi:10.1080/09538259.2024.2303654 2026

  11. [11]

    (2025) Stanford University Press + PKP launch new journal

    16 https://web.archive.org/web/19991013041045/http://www.lib.unc.edu/prices/1989/PRIC13.HTML#13.9 Racy, F. (2025) Stanford University Press + PKP launch new journal. Public Knowledge Project. https://pkp.sfu.ca/2025/04/25/sup-pkp-launch-reviews-of-economic-literature-in-new-open-access-program/ RetractionWatch (2026) The Retraction Watch Mass Resignations...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.respol.2026.105519 1989