🤖 AI Summary
This study systematically examines 39 pairs of “split–zombie” journals since 1989 to investigate instances in which editorial boards collectively resigned from commercial publishers to launch independent successor journals. Combining bibliometric analysis with qualitative content analysis, the research provides the first large-scale empirical account of the drivers, publishing model transitions, and evolving relationships with major publishers associated with such schisms. Findings reveal that governance imbalances and unsustainable business models were primary catalysts, with most cases occurring within journals affiliated with the five largest academic publishers. The newly established journals predominantly adopted the diamond open access model, underscoring the rise of community-led scholarly publishing and illuminating viable pathways for academic self-governance in journal production.
📝 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.