University journals: a semi-systematic literature review of trends, challenges and future research directions

Inclusion criteria

Document type: research articles and conference papers.

Source type: journals and conference proceedings.

Content: studies addressing the definition, characteristics, roles, challenges, opportunities or impact of UJs.

Study design: qualitative, quantitative, mixed-methods and narrative studies.

Language: studies published in English and other languages with English translations of titles/abstracts.

Recognizing the potential impact of linguistic diversity on the accessibility and visibility of UJs publications, particularly in non-English-speaking regions, multilingual sources were included. In consideration of the search capabilities of the databases utilized, studies published in non-English languages were eligible if their titles and abstracts were available in English. Automated translation tools (DeepL, Google Translate and the Translate for Zotero plugin) were used to evaluate non-native language studies.

Exclusion criteria

Content:

• studies different publishing models without reference to university-based publishing

• studies solely focused on university book publishing or student journals

• case studies restricted to bibliometric or content analysis without broader relevance

• research on specific academic topics published in UJs rather than on the UJs themselves

• papers with an explicit commercial bias or sponsored by commercial publishers.

Document type:

• non-research papers (e.g. advertisements, interviews, editorials, letters)

• erratum or retraction notices (within a search query in databases and marked as Retracted Items in Zotero).

Quality issues: Papers with quality concerns (e.g. lack of peer review, marked as investigated for plagiarism, etc.).

Accessibility: Studies for which the full text is not available (not OA / not subscribed by an affiliated institution / restricted access sources / not available through OA preprint repositories).

Database coverage and publications overview

A total of 97 records were identified in the four databases (Dimensions Plus, OpenAlex, Scopus, WoS CC) that were included in the final review. Each record was retrieved from one or more databases. The largest number of records was identified in WoS CC (46), followed by Dimensions Plus (44), OpenAlex (43), and Scopus (39). (Table 2).

As illustrated by the Venn diagram (Figure 2), a number of records are common to several databases, indicating a certain level of overlap between them. However, the use of multiple databases allowed for broader coverage of relevant papers, as many results were unique to individual databases. This strategy ensured a comprehensive review of scientific publications related to UJs.

Figure 2

The research articles reviewed were published in 58 journals. Learned Publishing led with eight publications, followed by Serials Review with four, and Insights and Scientometrics with three articles. The remaining journals contributed one or two articles on the topic (see Supplementary data – Appendix Table 1). The predominant subject area of these journals was Library and Information Sciences, with notable intersections with Communication and Information Systems, often linked to Computer Science disciplines. Less commonly, journals focused on Education and Business Management were also represented.

The review also included 17 publications from conference proceedings (see Supplementary data – Appendix Table 2). The papers were drawn from conferences held in various regions of the world, for instance, the International Conference on Education, Management and Information Technology in China, the 20th International Conference on Electronic Publishing (ELPUB) in Germany and the Charleston Library Conference in the USA. Notably, conferences held in China accounted for the majority of the proceedings, with eight papers. Social sciences, in particular Education, dominate among the subject areas. However, several papers were presented at conferences on Computer Science and Business, Management and Accounting, highlighting the growing integration of technological and strategic considerations into UJs’ publishing models.

Publication distribution by regions and languages

Regional distribution. The geographical distribution of publications by country and region in which UJs are published demonstrates significant diversity. The majority of papers (21) focused on China, highlighting the region’s active engagement in UJs research. A notable number of studies examined UJs in the United States and the United Kingdom, with seven entries each. Spain and Brazil are represented by four entries each. Other countries such as Cuba, Ecuador, Indonesia, Nigeria and Turkey have two or three entries each (Figure 3).

Figure 3

Additionally, 12 publications are global in scope, and others focus on regions such as Latin America (three), Ibero-America (one), and the Nordic countries (one). This broad geographical range underscores the global significance of research on UJs publishing.

It is also important to note that 646 of the 727 records from 1980 to 2016, for which the full texts were unavailable and thus excluded from this review (in the PRISMA flow diagram (Figure 1), they are recorded under the total number of ‘Reports not retrieved’) originate from the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), a privately-owned platform for Chinese academic papers (CPI, 2022). This, along with the 21 records included in this review, highlights the active development of the topic of journal publishing by universities in China.

Language distribution. An analysis of the language distribution reveals a strong predominance of English, with 70 of the reviewed publications written in this language, representing the majority of studies. Spanish is the second most common language, with 15 entries, followed by Portuguese (four), Arabic (three), and two publications each in Indonesian, Lithuanian, Polish, Russian and Turkish. Furthermore, one publication each was identified in Chinese, German and Ukrainian (Figure 4). This distribution illustrates the dominance of English in academic discourse on UJs while acknowledging the presence of publications in other languages, which enriches the cultural and linguistic diversity of this review.

Figure 4

Historical overview of the structure of UJs publications

An analysis of research articles and conference papers published between 1995 and 2024 reveals several key trends in the development of scholarly output related to UJs:

1. Early developments (1995–2003). During this period, research on the topic was limited, with only two academic articles (Lewis, 1995; Zhang et al., 2003) and one conference paper (Zainab et al., 2002). While there was some emerging interest in the topic, no sustained research trajectory had yet been established.

2. Growth and development (2004–2010). Between 2004 and 2010, there was a noticeable increase in scholarly attention to UJs, with a peak in 2007, when five papers were published (Brown et al., 2007; Lorimer & Maxwell, 2007; Özdemir et al., 2007; Stanley & Yan, 2007; Zamora et al., 2007), followed by another productive year in 2010, which also saw five publications (Fischman et al., 2010; Galinienė, 2010; Giménez-Toledo, 2010; Kosavic, 2010; Tam & Chen, 2010). Other notable publications during this period included six additional research articles (Abadal & Alcaraz, 2008; Halle, 2004; Li, 2005, 2009; Li et al., 2008; Shuhua & Hengjun, 2004) and one conference paper (Li & Huo, 2010). This period marks the development of a solid research foundation, with notable attention from the academic community.

3. Fluctuations and increase (2011–2015). After a decline in 2011, with only one research article (Stone, 2011) and one conference paper (Yang, 2011), interest in UJs rebounded. By 2014, 5 research articles were published (Delgado, 2014; Ferreira & Caregnato, 2014; Hayes & Holley, 2014; Mahdavi & Abedi, 2014; Mattson & Friend, 2014), alongside eight further publications during this period (Galinienė, 2015; Kim Wu & McCullough, 2015; Kolesnykova & Kliushnyk, 2015; Liu, 2012; Reyes, 2012; Ruíz-Pérez et al., 2015; Solomon & Björk, 2012; Taylor et al., 2013). This consistent output suggests that there was a sustained interest in the topic, although it is notable that publications in conference proceedings remained limited to the occasional paper (Omonhinmin et al., 2014; Xiang-yang et al., 2012).

4. Stabilization and diversification (2016–2021). From 2016 onward, the number of research articles stabilized, ranging from three to six publications annually (Adema & Stone, 2017; Aditya & Izudin, 2021; Bains, 2017; Bernhardt, 2016; Björk, 2017, 2019; Corera-Álvarez & Molina-Molina, 2016; Dishman, 2017; Farias et al., 2018; Fernando & Toba, 2020; Feyen, 2021; González, 2019; Hoops & Hare, 2019; Ibrahim, 2021; Kazimirchik et al., 2021; T. Kolesnykova, 2017; T. Kolesnykova & Matveyeva, 2019; Late et al., 2020; Lira et al., 2019; Ndumbaro & Wema, 2016; Ndungu, 2020; Neubert & Rodrigues, 2021; A. N. Özdemir & Alpaydýn, 2018; Pamula-Cieslák, 2019; Repiso et al., 2019; Rocha & Alfaro, 2019; Shamsi-Gooshki et al., 2020; Stone, 2017; M. Taylor & Jensen, 2018; Vera et al., 2018; Wierzbicka-Próchniak & Szewczyk-Kłos, 2020; Woutersen-Windhouwer et al., 2020). Conference papers also increased during this period, peaking at three papers annually in 2016 (Fang, 2016; Speicher, 2016; Zhao, 2016) and 2018 (Chengyan, 2018; Saihanqiqige, 2018; Wu, 2018). Furthermore, four other conference papers on UJ publishing were published (Jing, 2019; Lovett & Rathemacher, 2020; Wu, 2021; Zhao, 2017). This phase reflects a maturation of the topic, with increased engagement across regions.

5. Recent increase (2022–2024). The most recent years saw a significant rise in the number of research articles published. In 2022, eight papers were published (Bravo et al., 2022; Demachki & Maricato, 2022; Domínguez & Marti-Lahera, 2022; Mills & Branford, 2022; Morrison et al., 2022; Nishikawa-Pacher, 2022; Tutuncu et al., 2022; Zekkoub, 2022), increasing to 12 in 2023 (Abdu, 2023; Fengming, 2023; Hérubel, 2023; Khamis, 2023; Kiran et al., 2023; Laakso & Multas, 2023; Reategui-Inga et al., 2023; Rivera et al., 2023; Samzugi & Kagugu, 2023; Tang & Xu, 2023; Tutuncu, 2023; Varela-Briceño, 2023). In 2024, the number of papers decreased to four (Bastida et al., 2024; H. Liu, 2024; Tutuncu, 2024; Wilches-Visbal et al., 2024), though this amount may grow due to delayed indexing. While conference papers during this period remained relatively low (Mofardin & Stojanovski, 2023; Widowati et al., 2022), overall, this period demonstrates a significant intensification of interest in UJs. (Figure 5).

Figure 5

Exploring the concept of university journal

The selected publications do not provide a comprehensive count of UJs published globally; however, they include data that collectively offer a partial understanding of the scale and scope of UJ publishing.

Nishikawa-Pacher (2022) identified 28 universities and university presses, representing more than a quarter of the top 100 publishers in terms of journal counts (see Supplementary data – Appendix Table 3). The list includes seven universities from Indonesia, nine from Latin America (four from Brazil, three from Argentina, one from Colombia and one from Mexico), four university presses from the USA and the two largest university presses from the United Kingdom (UK) – Oxford University Press (ranked 8th) and Cambridge University Press (ranked 11th). Notably, both UK presses operate as dual university and major commercial publishers. The results of Nishikawa-Pacher are provisional, as they depend on the inclusion of journals in specific databases. UJ researchers highlight the difficulties of getting these journals indexed (please see the Visibility and Indexing section).

Repiso et al. (2019) examined UJs using data from three WoS databases: Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index and Arts & Humanities Citation Index. Their study identified 1,492 journals published by 387 universities across 56 countries. The top three countries for journals were the UK, the US and Canada. Halle (2004) highlighted significant regional differences in university publishing practices, with a particular focus on Germany, where only ten university publishers exist, none of which specialize in journals. In contrast, university presses in Anglo-American countries play a critical role in academic discourse by publishing numerous journals and supporting OA initiatives.

Further regional insights include findings from Spain (Abadal & Alcaraz, 2008) and China (H. Li & Huo, 2010), where UJs account for 30% of all academic journals. Laakso & Multas (2023) noted that UJs represent a substantial segment of the small- and mid-sized publishing sector in Europe, with 46% of single-journal publishers being university-based.

These publications highlight the prominent role of UJs in scholarly communication around the world, while also highlighting significant regional differences.

Ownership. The reviewed publications do not provide a definitive consensus on the ownership structures of UJs. However, most publications (79 out of 105) refer to universities as owners, curators or managers of these journals. This category includes universities or colleges, public universities (hereinafter – some examples, for full details see Nazarovets (2025)) for instance in Turkey (Tutuncu et al., 2022), federal universities, notably in Brazil (Lira et al., 2019), private universities, as observed in Nigeria (Omonhinmin et al., 2014), and universities where librarians play a role in the publishing process, but the university libraries are not owners, as in Mexico (González, 2019). Notably, L. Li (2009) and R. Li et al. (2008) write that in China, UJs often include the name of the university in their titles, reflecting their institutional affiliation and ownership. Until recently, a significant number of Chinese UJs operated under an outdated publishing model – the ‘one university, one journal’, where a single UJ included articles from all the disciplines taught at that university (R. Li et al., 2008).

Certain studies highlight ownership by specific university units, such as schools, faculties and departments (Björk, 2017; Delgado, 2014). Feyen (2021) notes that, in Ecuador, UJ is managed by the university research office.

Only a limited number of publications mention university presses as UJ owners. In such cases, university presses often operate as integral units within their host institutions (Hayes & Holley, 2014; Lewis, 1995). Similarly, a smaller number of publications indicate that the owner is a university library system (Fang, 2016), including the library-led New University Press (Stone, 2017; Taylor & Jensen, 2018).

None of the selected articles describe UJs as being published by commercial publishers. However, divergent perspectives exist regarding collaboration between universities and major commercial publishing entities. Chinese researchers argue that such partnerships can enhance the international visibility and influence of UJs (Li et al., 2008; Stanley & Yan, 2007). Conversely, Canadian scholars Lorimer & Maxwell (2007) express concerns that the acquisition of successful UJs by large commercial publishers could increase access costs and hinder the dissemination of knowledge.

Publishing entity. The reviewed literature offers limited explicit references to who plays the role of a publishing entity for UJs. Often, universities are broadly identified as the publishers without clarifying whether they maintain dedicated journal publishing infrastructure. It is often mentioned that in the digital age, universities are able to support their own electronic publishing platforms for their UJs (Reategui-Inga et al., 2023; Zainab et al., 2002; Zekkoub, 2022). Frequently, these activities are facilitated by individual faculties, departments or research groups, as seen in Spain (Abadal & Alcaraz, 2008). In some cases, such as in China, journal editorial offices outsource specialized tasks to external companies (Stanley & Yan, 2007).

University libraries play a pivotal role in supporting UJs by offering technical infrastructure, hosting services and assistance with typesetting and other production tasks (Dishman, 2017; T. Kolesnykova, 2017; Kosavic, 2010).

University presses, while focusing primarily on book products, are increasingly involved in journal publishing, either independently or more often as printing facilities in cooperation with journal editorial boards representing the university or a department, or in partnership with university libraries (Brown et al., 2007; Hérubel, 2023; Late et al., 2020).

In addition to individual universities and presses, consortia of universities (Woutersen-Windhouwer et al., 2020) and specialized platforms such as SciELO in Latin America (Demachki & Maricato, 2022; Reyes, 2012), Egyptian Knowledge Bank (Ibrahim, 2021) or DergiPark in Turkey (Kiran et al., 2023; A. N. Özdemir & Alpaydýn, 2018) provide a centralised infrastructure for UJ publishing.

Editorial control. The reviewed publications indicate that there is no unified model of editorial control guiding UJs across regions.

A common practice is for editorial boards to consist of faculty and scholars affiliated with the same university, who manage editorial responsibilities alongside their primary academic roles, such as teaching and research (Delgado, 2014; Shuhua & Hengjun, 2004; Tam & Chen, 2010; Varela-Briceño, 2023). For instance, Tutuncu (2024) indicates that 99% of editors-in-chief and 86% of members of editorial boards in Turkish universities are affiliated with the same institution. In Chinese universities, editorial boards are chaired by senior university officials, such as the president, vice-president or chair of the academic committee (Stanley & Yan, 2007). Additionally, there are references to academic committees or departments, such as in Lithuania, that are responsible for approving and controlling the UJ content (Galinienė, 2015).

In other cases, editorial boards include scholars from outside the host university (Lovett & Rathemacher, 2020; A. N. Özdemir & Alpaydýn, 2018). The inclusion of international experts is recognized as a means of improving the journal’s quality and reputation (Bravo et al., 2022; Feyen, 2021; González, 2019).

Editors in some UJs operate on a voluntary basis or receive minimal financial compensation for their work (Farias et al., 2018; Mofardin & Stojanovski, 2023). However, certain universities, particularly in China, have established dedicated editorial departments staffed by full time editors and their assistants (L. Li, 2009; Saihanqiqige, 2018; Tang & Xu, 2023).

The role of librarians in supporting the editorial process is generally limited to providing technical infrastructure, offering training on journal platforms (Dishman, 2017; Ndungu, 2020) and assisting editors with previewing articles or organizational activities, but they do not make final editorial decisions (González, 2019; Mattson & Friend, 2014).

Peer review process. The reviewed literature highlights diverse approaches to organizing the peer review process, with significant variation depending on regional practices and the internal resources of the UJs. The double-anonymous peer review model is the most frequently cited standard practice across many UJs (Domínguez & Marti-Lahera, 2022; Ruíz-Pérez et al., 2015; Tutuncu et al., 2022). Other models, such as single-anonymous or open peer review, are also employed but less commonly discussed (Mofardin & Stojanovski, 2023; Woutersen-Windhouwer et al., 2020).

In many instances, academic staff affiliated with the university or closely associated institutions play a key role in the peer review process (R. Li et al., 2008; Y. Liu, 2012; Tam & Chen, 2010). However, there is a growing trend to involve at least one reviewer from outside the university or from abroad (Kiran et al., 2023; Late et al., 2020; Repiso et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2003). This practice is increasingly recognized as essential for enhancing objectivity and aligning with global academic standards.

In some countries, UJs do not meet international peer review standards. This was reported for countries such as Nigeria (Mills & Branford, 2022) and Peru (Reategui-Inga et al., 2023).

Funding. The reviewed literature identifies several key funding models and challenges related to the sustainability of UJs. These models are heavily reliant on university resources, government support, grants and other external funding sources.

A substantial proportion of UJs receive direct funding from university budgets. For instance, in Tanzania, 95.3% of journals are funded by universities, with the remaining portion supported by external donors (Samzugi & Kagugu, 2023). In some cases, UJs are funded through library budgets, as seen in Ukraine (T. Kolesnykova & Matveyeva, 2019), or in the UK (M. Taylor & Jensen, 2018). However, many UJs face significant financial challenges and chronic underfunding (Reategui-Inga et al., 2023; Saihanqiqige, 2018; Tang & Xu, 2023). University libraries, in particular, are grappling with budget constraints and are exploring innovative funding approaches, such as print-on-demand (Stone, 2017).

Some UJs benefit from government funding programmes, such as Support for Scientific Journals in Poland (Wierzbicka-Próchniak & Szewczyk-Kłos, 2020). In Canada, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council provides financial assistance (Lorimer & Maxwell, 2007), in China, UJs are supported by the National Research Council and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (Shuhua & Hengjun, 2004), in Croatia, government funding is provided by the Ministry of Science and Education and other ministries (Mofardin & Stojanovski, 2023). Additionally, some UJs secure grants from international funding agencies (Björk, 2017).

Several UJs operate on self-sustaining financial models, such as article processing charges (APCs) or subscription sales, for instance, in Chile (Reyes, 2012). Notably, a study by Solomon & Björk (2012) found that APCs for UJs are typically lower than those charged by commercial publishers. In China, for instance, universities charge 100 yuan per page or 500 yuan per article (approximately €13–€65) (Stanley & Yan, 2007). A more recent study by Morrison et al. (2022) confirmed Solomon & Björk’s findings, noting that over half of OA UJs do not charge APCs. They also explain that where charges are applied, they remain significantly lower than the average APC charged by commercial publishers.

Institutional support. Institutional support is one of the key factors in ensuring the stability and functioning of UJs, but the level and consistency of this support varies widely, as shown in the literature reviewed.

Many UJs receive strong institutional support, including access to infrastructure, administrative resources and staffing, for example, in China (Tang & Xu, 2023), in Brazil (Lira et al., 2019) or in Cuba (Domínguez & Marti-Lahera, 2022). However, even where institutional support is substantial, challenges related to funding sustainability remain, as in Ukraine (T. Kolesnykova & Matveyeva, 2019) or in Tanzania (Samzugi & Kagugu, 2023). Some journals receive limited or inconsistent support from their host institutions, partly because of the difficulty in convincing senior management of the value or strategic importance of UJs (Dishman, 2017).

Institutional efforts are often complemented by government initiatives to facilitate research and standardized requirements for UJs, which help to formalize and stabilize their operations. Notable examples include China (Stanley & Yan, 2007), Ecuador (Rivera et al., 2023) Finland (Late et al., 2020) and Chile (Reyes, 2012).

Operational and access models. The operational models of UJs are subject to variation depending on the methods of distribution and technologies employed, and this situation is undergoing a process of change over time. Three primary approaches are identified: print models, digital/online models and mixed models, with a clear trend toward increasing digitalization.

Digital/online models dominate discussions in the literature (Bains, 2017; Rivera et al., 2023; Solomon & Björk, 2012). Specialized platforms such as open journal systems (OJS) globally (Kim Wu & McCullough, 2015; T. Kolesnykova, 2017; Lira et al., 2019) or SciELO in Latin America (Demachki & Maricato, 2022) are often used for UJs. A significant shift towards digital models is frequently noted (Abadal & Alcaraz, 2008; Galinienė, 2010; Mahdavi & Abedi, 2014).

Digital models provide OA capabilities and enable global distribution (Fischman et al., 2010; Late et al., 2020; D. Taylor et al., 2013). For instance, Samzugi & Kagugu (2023) report that more than 67% of Tanzania’s UJs are OA. Many UJs use Diamond/Platinum OA, which eliminates charges for both authors and readers (Mofardin & Stojanovski, 2023; Morrison et al., 2022; Neubert & Rodrigues, 2021). Omonhinmin et al., (2014) also write about green OA adopted for journals in a Nigerian university. However, some publications highlight the use of subscriptions (Lorimer & Maxwell, 2007; Repiso et al., 2019), and some journals have historically distributed issues through exchanges with other universities, as was common in China (L. Li, 2009; Y. Liu, 2012).

Mixed models are a common approach that allows UJs to be kept in print for audiences that for some reason prefer this traditional form, such as library collections, while at the same time using UJs in electronic format through online platforms to increase access, as in Turkey (Kiran et al., 2023), or in Chile (Reyes, 2012).

While print models are declining in popularity, in some countries they have long been used as the main method of UJ distribution, such as in Nigeria (Abdu, 2023), Tanzania (Ndumbaro & Wema, 2016), or China (Chengyan, 2018).

Journal impact and target audience. The impact of UJs is shaped by their visibility, indexing in international databases and alignment with the needs of specific target audiences.

The reviewed literature reveals that many UJs primarily serve a local audience, including faculty from the publishing university and other nearby institutions (L. Li, 2009; Ruíz-Pérez et al., 2015). Early-career researchers (Adema & Stone, 2017) and postgraduate students (Ferreira & Caregnato, 2014; A. N. Özdemir & Alpaydýn, 2018) also represent significant contributors and consumers of UJs. For example, Feyen (2021) reports that 70% of the authors contributing to Maskana are docents or researchers affiliated with the University of Cuenca, and 93% of first authors are Ecuadorians. H. Li & Huo (2010) state that approximately 50% of articles in Chinese UJs are authored by postgraduate students. Furthermore, UJs often address regional issues (Abdu, 2023; Corera-Álvarez & Molina-Molina, 2016; Yang, 2011).

The transition to digital formats (Mattson & Friend, 2014), the adoption of OA (Dishman, 2017; Stone, 2017) and indexing in international databases (Domínguez & Marti-Lahera, 2022; Kiran et al., 2023) allow UJs to gradually significantly enhance the visibility, expand their reach and attract a broader, more international readership.

Quality of publication, editorial and peer review process

Submission quality. The reviewed literature highlights significant challenges for UJs in attracting high-quality submissions. The competition with internationally impactful journals often diverts robust research to these outlets (H. Li & Huo, 2010; Xiang-yang et al., 2012). For example, Li (2009) notes that Chinese UJs frequently receive submissions from graduate students, whose manuscripts can vary considerably in quality, creating additional challenges for editors in maintaining publishing standards. Similar issues with low-quality submissions are documented in Ecuador (Feyen, 2021) and Tanzania (Samzugi & Kagugu, 2023).

Another persistent challenge is the quality of English-language content. Language barriers negatively impact the credibility and reach of UJs, as observed by Kolesnykova & Kliushnyk (2015) and Zhang et al. (2003).

Editorial quality. Maintaining high editorial standards and transparency are among the most pressing challenges faced by UJs (Bravo et al., 2022; Fengming, 2023; H. Liu, 2024; Mills & Branford, 2022; Pamula-Cieslák, 2019; Tutuncu, 2023; Wu, 2021). One key limitation is the lack of professional editorial staff, as noted for UJs in Latin America and Spain (Corera-Álvarez & Molina-Molina, 2016) and China (Saihanqiqige, 2018). Many UJs rely on volunteers or underpaid staff, which restricts opportunities for innovation and professional growth in editorial practices (Farias et al., 2018; Lorimer & Maxwell, 2007).

Ensuring editorial independence to adapt to rapid disciplinary changes (Hérubel, 2023) and maintaining high standards while navigating emerging technologies, such as big data, further complicates editorial management (Jing, 2019). Insufficient and time-consuming training for editors exacerbates these challenges (Kim Wu & McCullough, 2015; Varela-Briceño, 2023).

The implementation of the library publishing model by university libraries also introduces additional challenges, including the need for formalized training and clear delineation of responsibilities between library staff and editorial teams (Hoops & Hare, 2019; Mattson & Friend, 2014; Varela-Briceño, 2023).

Issues such as endogamy in the editorial boards of Spanish UJs (Giménez-Toledo, 2010), protectionism in Chinese UJs, where most publications originate from faculty members (Tam & Chen, 2010), and editorial favouritism in Turkish UJs, where authors affiliated with a university receive accelerated processing (Tutuncu, 2023, 2024; Tutuncu et al., 2022), further undermine editorial quality. Additionally, the lack of consistent declarations of conflicts of interest and adherence to ethical codes represents a major concern, as in Iranian UJs (Shamsi-Gooshki et al., 2020).

Rocha & Alfaro (2019) argue that the majority of UJs in Costa Rica lack gender-inclusive language policies, which are closely linked to broader institutional commitments to gender equality. Vera et al. (2018) highlight the necessity of integrating a gender perspective in Ecuadorian UJs to enhance the quality of scientific publications.

Peer review process challenges. The necessity for consistent quality control and peer review in the publishing process at UJs is a topic addressed by, for example, Corera-Álvarez & Molina-Molina (2016) in Latin America, (Khamis, 2023) in Egypt and (Stone, 2011) in the UK. The peer review process in UJs faces issues of bias and a lack of thoroughness, particularly in regions like China (Fengming, 2023; Stanley & Yan, 2007) and transparency, as noted in Turkey (Kiran et al., 2023; Tutuncu, 2023). Outdated peer review systems in China (Y. Liu, 2012), and the broader global peer review crisis, marked by a shortage of qualified independent experts, also affect UJs globally (Woutersen-Windhouwer et al., 2020). Additional concerns include predatory practices and commercial motives, which undermine credibility, as in Kenya (Ndungu, 2020) or Nigeria (Mills & Branford, 2022).

Publication delays and irregular publication schedules. Publication delays and irregular schedules remain persistent issues for UJs (Corera-Álvarez & Molina-Molina, 2016; Domínguez & Marti-Lahera, 2022; Ndumbaro & Wema, 2016). These delays are often caused by time-consuming editorial processes and extended peer-review processes (Li, 2009; Shamsi-Gooshki et al., 2020). Limited staffing and funding exacerbate these issues (Galinienė, 2015; H. Liu, 2024). Such delays frequently result in high-quality manuscripts being redirected to alternative journals with faster publication times (Fengming, 2023; Zhao, 2016).

Financial and resource limitations

Financial constraints and sustainability. A significant body of literature highlights the financial challenges faced by UJs (Abdu, 2023; Dishman, 2017; Fang, 2016; Fischman et al., 2010; Khamis, 2023; H. Liu, 2024; Mattson & Friend, 2014; Reategui-Inga et al., 2023; M. Taylor & Jensen, 2018). Limited budgets, irregular funding and reliance on volunteer labour are common issues that threaten their sustainability and capacity to maintain high publication standards (Adema & Stone, 2017; Bains, 2017; Björk, 2019; Ferreira & Caregnato, 2014; Hérubel, 2023; Neubert & Rodrigues, 2021; Pamula-Cieslák, 2019; Widowati et al., 2022). Rising operational costs, particularly for journals that do not charge APCs, further exacerbate these challenges (Morrison et al., 2022). Without additional financial resources, many UJs struggle to provide editor training, adopt innovative publishing practices, or scale their operations (Aditya & Izudin, 2021; Speicher, 2016).

Competitive and commercialization pressures. UJs operating under subscription models face increasing competition from large commercial publishers, which challenge their ability to maintain competitive pricing while covering operational costs (Solomon & Björk, 2012). Poor management of subscription revenues risks reduced readership and accessibility (Lorimer & Maxwell, 2007). Furthermore, Lorimer & Maxwell (2007) posit that the potential for commercial takeover of UJs raises concerns about academic independence and increased publication costs.

Conversely, UJs reliant on institutional funding face sustainability challenges, especially in contexts where competition is weak or business models are unclear (Stone, 2017). The absence of robust marketing strategies further compounds these issues (Dishman, 2017; Kiran et al., 2023).

Institutional and external support challenges. Inconsistent institutional support poses significant obstacles to UJ sustainability (Abdu, 2023; Delgado, 2014; Mills & Branford, 2022; Ndumbaro & Wema, 2016). Many journals relying on the institution/funder-pays model require continuous financial assistance, which is often inadequate or unreliable (Stone, 2017). National and institutional skepticism about UJs, coupled with their perceived low academic status, limits access to necessary funding and support (Brown et al., 2007; Ruíz-Pérez et al., 2015; Saihanqiqige, 2018). This lack of investment hampers the ability of journals to train staff and adopt new technologies (Lorimer & Maxwell, 2007; Morrison et al., 2022). Additionally, insufficient governmental support makes UJs vulnerable to funding fluctuations and operational instability (Reategui-Inga et al., 2023).

Operational costs and resource intensity. The transition from print to digital formats has introduced significant resource demands (Omonhinmin et al., 2014; Tang & Xu, 2023; Wierzbicka-Próchniak & Szewczyk-Kłos, 2020). Hosting and maintaining digital platforms, such as OJS, requires substantial technical and financial investment, as was established in the case of a Canadian university (Kosavic, 2010). Simultaneously distributing print and digital versions further strains budgets (Reyes, 2012).

OA models, while expanding readership, have also introduced challenges, as some university publishers waive publication fees for institutional authors, reducing revenue streams (Hayes & Holley, 2014; Late et al., 2020; Speicher, 2016).

Human resources. The reliance on small, volunteer-driven teams creates challenges in maintaining consistent editorial and operational standards (Adema & Stone, 2017; Lovett & Rathemacher, 2020; Stone, 2011; M. Taylor & Jensen, 2018). Faculty members managing UJs often face additional administrative burdens, impacting the quality and timeliness of their work (Widowati et al., 2022). High staff turnover disrupts workflows and hinders knowledge continuity (Bernhardt, 2016; Hoops & Hare, 2019).

Librarians assisting with editorial tasks often lack experience in journal management, and their involvement is typically time-limited, reducing opportunities for professional development (Dishman, 2017; González, 2019).

Low salaries for editors and library personnel further impede long-term development and innovation in UJs (T. Kolesnykova & Matveyeva, 2019; Shuhua & Hengjun, 2004).

Tang & Xu (2023) posit that lack of specialized technical personnel constrains the capacity of UJs to innovate and provide efficacious support for digital platforms.

Visibility and indexing

International visibility and recognition. The international visibility of many UJs remains limited, restricting their ability to make a significant global impact (Corera-Álvarez & Molina-Molina, 2016; Ferreira & Caregnato, 2014; Feyen, 2021; Fischman et al., 2010). This challenge is partially attributable to a lack of international submissions, as researchers often prefer journals with greater global reach and recognition (Björk, 2019; Rivera et al., 2023). This creates a self-reinforcing cycle in which UJs fail to attract high-quality, internationally recognized submissions, thereby further limiting their recognition and potential international impact.

Challenges of indexing in global databases. One of the most critical challenges for UJs is securing indexing in global databases and citation indexes (Björk, 2019; Mills & Branford, 2022; Reategui-Inga et al., 2023). Only a small proportion of UJs have achieved indexing in these platforms (Bravo et al., 2022; A. N. Özdemir & Alpaydýn, 2018; Wilches-Visbal et al., 2024).

The primary barrier to indexing lies in the difficulty of meeting stringent selection criteria (Ibrahim, 2021; Neubert & Rodrigues, 2021; Zekkoub, 2022). Even when indexed, many UJs are placed in lower quartiles based on the number of citations received, reflecting their relatively limited impact (Repiso et al., 2019). However, journals published by universities have a lower exclusion probability from databases like Scopus compared to non-university publishers (Wilches-Visbal et al., 2024).

Another impediment is the inconsistent use of metadata and suboptimal indexing practices, which negatively affect the discoverability of UJs in academic databases and search engines, as in the Spanish case (Zamora et al., 2007).

Language restrictions. Language barriers are a significant challenge to the international visibility and impact of UJs. It is argued that journals published primarily in national languages may encounter difficulties in attracting an international readership and authorial audiences, as well as in receiving citations (Ferreira & Caregnato, 2014; Fischman et al., 2010; L. Li, 2005; A. N. Özdemir & Alpaydýn, 2018).

Distribution and accessibility challenges. Before the widespread adoption of digital formats, low circulation was a persistent issue for UJs (R. Li et al., 2008; Xiang-yang et al., 2012). Many journals were distributed only within specific universities or through inter-institutional exchanges, which restricted their accessibility to a broader readership, as in China (L. Li, 2005).

Technology infrastructure and innovation

Challenges in technological infrastructure. A recurring theme in the literature is the lack of sufficient infrastructure and technical support necessary for modern publishing practices in UJs. Many journals lag in digitalization (Abadal & Alcaraz, 2008; T. O. Kolesnykova & Kliushnyk, 2015; Zekkoub, 2022). In some cases, outdated technological infrastructure hampers efforts to enhance digital accessibility, as observed in Ukraine (T. Kolesnykova & Matveyeva, 2019). Additionally, the scarcity of skilled human resources and technical expertise to operate and maintain digital systems exacerbates these challenges, particularly in countries like Croatia (Mofardin & Stojanovski, 2023).

Rigid organizational structures within some universities further complicate the adoption of innovative publishing practices, limiting the introduction of new media practices and better communication channels, as noted in China (Chengyan, 2018).

Transition to digital systems and OA models. The transition to digital systems and OA publishing models poses numerous challenges for UJs, requiring substantial technological investment and ongoing maintenance (Abdu, 2023; Adema & Stone, 2017; Brown et al., 2007; Lewis, 1995; Zainab et al., 2002). Key steps in this transition include implementing journal management systems and automation processes, which necessitate continuous updates and usability enhancements (Mahdavi & Abedi, 2014; Wierzbicka-Próchniak & Szewczyk-Kłos, 2020; Zhao, 2016). Ensuring that editors, authors and reviewers can effectively use these systems is critical, often requiring dedicated training programmes (Lira et al., 2019; S. Özdemir et al., 2007; Zhao, 2017).

Challenges with OJS. Many publications highlight the challenges associated with maintaining the technological infrastructure of OJS, one of the most widely used open software platforms for UJs (Kim Wu & McCullough, 2015; Lira et al., 2019; Widowati et al., 2022). Small universities, particularly in Canada, frequently lack the technical support and specialized staff required to manage OJS effectively (Taylor et al., 2013). Faculty and journal staff often struggle to understand the full functionality of OJS, as observed in the USA (Bernhardt, 2016).

Accessibility and long-term digital content management. Some electronic UJs exhibit limited functionality, offering only basic access to abstracts on their websites, which restricts accessibility, usability and reader engagement, as in Malaysia’s UJs (Zainab et al., 2002). Wu (2018) posits that inconsistencies in content differentiation across distribution platforms may also serve to limit audience engagement and accessibility, as in UJs in China.

The question of best practices for archiving and ensuring long-term access to digital content has been identified by researchers of UJs as a significant issue that requires careful planning and resource allocation (Galinienė, 2010; Kim Wu & McCullough, 2015; Mahdavi & Abedi, 2014).

Opportunities for UJs

The reviewed publications identify several strategies and opportunities for UJs to enhance their visibility, operational efficiency and global impact.

Leveraging digital platforms and modern publishing tools. Digital platforms and contemporary publishing technologies offer significant opportunities for UJs to reduce costs, accelerate publication processes and improve content quality and accessibility. Key advancements include: online submission systems, digital editing tools and automated proofreading systems (Zhao, 2016), journal platforms like OJS, widely adopted for managing UJs (T. Kolesnykova & Matveyeva, 2019; Lira et al., 2019; Ndungu, 2020), journal portals (Björk, 2017) and regional digitization initiatives, such as Turkey’s DergiPark (A. N. Özdemir & Alpaydýn, 2018; Tutuncu, 2023) or IngentaConnect in the UK (Speicher, 2016), developing regional indexing systems to increase discoverability UJs (Fischman et al., 2010), and the adaptation of editorial workflows to incorporate big data technologies (Jing, 2019).

Enhancing visibility through OA and indexing. The adoption of OA models (Omonhinmin et al., 2014; Solomon & Björk, 2012; Stone, 2011) and inclusion in indexing databases, such as SciELO and DOAJ, significantly enhance the global visibility of UJs (Björk, 2019; Ferreira & Caregnato, 2014). Government and funding agency support for OA policies also helps UJs reach wider audiences (Late et al., 2020; Morrison et al., 2022).

Improving editorial practices and professional development. Improving editorial workflows and investing in the professional development of editorial staff are essential for the growth and sustainability of UJs. Suggested strategies include: establishing training programmes for editors and journal managers (Aditya & Izudin, 2021; Giménez-Toledo, 2010; Saihanqiqige, 2018; Varela-Briceño, 2023), implementing multi-level evaluation models to ensure consistent quality (Ruíz-Pérez et al., 2015; Xiang-yang et al., 2012), integrating library resources and technologies, such as copyright management, information literacy training, digital preservation etc. (Adema & Stone, 2017; Brown et al., 2007; Farias et al., 2018; Hoops & Hare, 2019).

Focusing on underserved subject areas. Targeting subject areas where commercial publishers have limited influence offers a unique opportunity for UJs to fill critical gaps in academic publishing (Hérubel, 2023; Neubert & Rodrigues, 2021).

Internationalization and audience expansion. Efforts to internationalize UJs and broaden their readership include: translation into English and the publication of bilingual editions (L. Li, 2005), collaboration with international publishers to extend reach (Stanley & Yan, 2007), partnership between UJs (Fernando & Toba, 2020), inter-university partnerships (Bastida et al., 2024) and cooperation with foreign authors to diversify contributions (Rivera et al., 2023; Tam & Chen, 2010; Xiang-yang et al., 2012), inclusion of journals in international databases such as DOAJ, Scopus and WoS (Zekkoub, 2022).