Key Performance Indicators for Social-Science and Humanities Journals: Editorial

Abstract

Twelve academic critics (interested in the management of academic journals) have been invited to partake in the composition of this editorial. They have engaged in three main rounds to craft standards for journals. Five holistic standards have been manufactured, each one consisting of measurable key performance indicators. The first is human potential, which discusses, for instance, the representation of genders among editorial board members and reviewers. The second is ethics, for example, problematising the practice of judging articles and journals merely based on their ability to attract citations, and thus make a so-called ‘impact’. The third is regulations, deeming it necessary to ensure transparency and protect authors' rights (e.g. by publishing the expected time from submission to first decisions). The fourth is digital quality, such as the online publication of manuscripts right after their acceptance. The fifth is technical sophistication, including the availability of regularly published statistics on the journal’s workflow. This editorial has three strong points: first, it discusses the proposed standards by comparing them with existing standards imposed by major organisations (namely Scopus and Clarivate); second, it sheds light on potential challenges that may be encountered when exposing Arab journals to the proposed standards, hoping that these standards act as a starting point for a fundamental reform in Arab journals; third, it evaluates the Scientific Journal of King Faisal University according to the proposed standards, thereby empirically testing out these standards.