“I just very much love the journal”:  Understanding the community-led publishing landscape at the University of Cambridge

1.1 Background

Historically speaking, scholarly communities have until recently required the services of professional printers and publishers to distribute their work. Publishing was originally organised by learned societies who needed to cover the costs of publication through benefactors and patrons, often allowing them to distribute their printed work for free (Fyfe et al. 2017, 5). It wasn’t until the 1950s that publishing itself commercialised as a self-sustaining industry and not until the 1990s that it was marketised to the business that is recognisable today. This process of marketisation has meant that publishing has increasingly been taken out of the control of academic communities and is now governed by the market at large. An extreme example of this phenomenon is the rise of the APC, a payment by authors for the OA publication of their article. APC business models reward greater article volume, which has led to commercial publishers pressuring editorial boards into accepting increasing numbers of papers for maximum returns (Fazackerley 2023).

While more mission-driven publishers such as learned societies and university presses still exist as important features of the publishing landscape, they too have been shaped by the drive for commercial outcomes and self-sustaining forms of revenue (Adema 2022, 142). As universities withdraw the subsidies they previously provided, university presses are also forced to operate as businesses by breaking even through sales and other commercial returns, again ceding control to market logic. Learned societies now also face declining revenues that they previously put towards their scholarly activities, with those partnering with commercial publishers seemingly most affected (Johnson and Malcolmson 2024). Commercial decision-making has profoundly shaped the ways in which academics publish their work.

Yet while professional forms of publishing are increasingly commercialised, there exists a flourishing ecosystem of community-led publishers operating within and across universities without recourse to professional publishing services but supported through self-organisation and a DIY approach to publishing their work. Enabled by the Web and digital technologies, this ecosystem is heterogenous in terms of subject matter, publication practices, financial support and many other features. Limited work has been undertaken to understand some of these publishers in a range of contexts. For example, Adema and Stone conducted a qualitative study of 14 ‘academic-led’ publishers, all of whom published OA material, ranging from DIY outfits to more professional publishers. Motivations included OA to knowledge, independence from publishing houses, publishing alternative or experimental content, and the desire to control their own work (Adema, Stone, and Keene 2017, 43–47). These presses publish books, journals and born-digital projects with a high degree of heterogeneity of practice.

More recently, the turn to diamond OA has led researchers to analyse journals that rely less on commercial models and more on institutional forms of support, many of whom would be considered community-led in the sense we are describing. The Developing Institutional Open Access Publishing Models to Advance Scholarly Communication (DIAMAS) project aims to study these journals and devise forms of support for their activities. The project conducted a landscape study of institutional publishing activities (with a particular focus on the European research area), receiving 685 survey responses from 48 countries. The authors found that these publishers were highly influenced by their localities with significant differences between countries but fewer differences within them, such as languages, forms of institutional support and publishing practices (Armengou et al. 2023a). In a separate report, the DIAMAS project found that many journals were supported institutionally and through in-kind support and volunteer labour, showing a range of different practices between the journals studied (Brun, Pontille, and Torny 2024). The authors concluded that more must be done by universities to enable the diamond OA ecosystem, particularly through fixed and permanent forms of funding that allow them to undertake their work.

Other work has been undertaken on the community-led OA landscape within national contexts, such as Switzerland and Germany. The Germany study identified 345 distinct diamond OA journals, although offered no descriptive characteristics beyond raw numbers. The Swiss ‘Platinum Open Access Funding (PLATO)’ study identified 186 diamond OA journals in Switzerland, describing their work as follows:

The authors also explored the motivations of the editors with recourse to qualitative data analysis of interviews with 22 journals. They found that editors are motivated variously by OA, by growing the impact and reach of their journal and by the ‘enhanced autonomy’ of running their own journals and having control of the content. Nevertheless, their main challenges were relating to funding (or a lack thereof ), overreliance on volunteer work, and the continual need to balance autonomy with standardisation (Hahn et al. 2023, 18).

Community-led forms of OA are also important from a student-led publishing perspective. Many institutional journals are run by students across undergraduate and postgraduate levels. For example, Uigín and colleagues detail the establishment of a student-led journal in Irish language studies that forms part of the MA programme at the National University of Ireland in Galway. They describe the pedagogical benefits of engaging with the publishing lifecycle and ‘the mechanics of academic writing – editing, copyediting, formatting’ (Uigín, Higgins, and McHale 2015). Similarly, Wojturska explains that student journals are ‘set up to highlight the work of students but are also spaces for students to engage in and contribute to their academic field in a concrete and professional way’ (Wojturska 2022). They are also useful for grounding students in academic standards and ethical conduct in research dissemination (Buckland 2015). Student journals are beneficial, then, for both their academic contributions and their ability to give students experience of a range of technical and organisational skills.

In building on this literature, we are adding an institutional dimension that seeks to offer both a picture of the kinds of community-led publications that exist at the University of Cambridge and a deeper understanding of their motivations. We are aware that Cambridge is a comparatively well-resourced, research-intensive institution in a Global Northern/anglophone context. We are keen not to generalise out from the experiences presented here but instead seek to learn why and how these journals come about and how a wider network of community-led publishers might be supported. In building this argument, we hope therefore to make a case for supporting the growing ecosystem of CPPs and associated publishing projects worldwide.

2.1 Sample

Through an initial landscape analysis, we mapped the varied community-led publishing projects across the University of Cambridge that we could find and sorted them according to high-level categories (e.g. date established, discipline, publication frequency, editorial leadership, OA model). A total of 34 CPPs were identified. We then qualitatively explored the practices and motivations of these CPPs within Cambridge by purposefully selecting projects from a range of disciplines and inviting editorial members to be interviewed. Following this review, members of the editorial teams (e.g. founders, editors-in-chief, managing editors) of 20 journals across various disciplines were invited via email to participate in an interview. A final sample of 10 participants from seven different journals responded and agreed to be interviewed.

2.2 Procedure

All interviews were semi-structured and conducted in English between September 2023 and February 2024 by the second researcher. They took place on Microsoft Teams at a time convenient to participants and were guided by a set of pre-specified questions (all research material, including these questions, and data can be found at Moore and Wigdorowitz 2024). While interviews started with general questions about the CPP and participants’ involvement in it, aspects about openness, motivation and support, the order, phrasing and types of questions varied in response to how the conversation unfolded. Follow-up and novel questions arose in some conversations as necessary. Interviews lasted between 32 to 58 minutes (mean = 45.21 minutes) and were audio-visually recorded and transcribed.

We outsourced the services of a transcription company to transcribe the interviews. Following receipt of the transcripts, we thoroughly checked them against the original recordings to ensure we had an accurate record of the discussion. During the initial check, where names or other identifiable information was mentioned, these were highlighted and flagged in the document in accordance with UK Data Service’s guidance on anonymising qualitative data.¹ Participants were sent a copy of their interview transcript for approval prior to any analysis or publication. They were asked to clarify, using track changes or highlighting, any content and/or anonymise the transcript further as needed. We informed them that where any identifiable information was mentioned, it would be redacted from the published version and that the final transcript would not include their name in the file title or elsewhere. Interview questions and transcripts (where consent to share was provided) are publicly available in the Cambridge institutional repository, Apollo,² although video recordings will not be shared beyond the project team.

2.3 Data analysis

Interview transcripts were analysed through inductive content analysis, in which emergent themes are derived from data rather than being predetermined (Elo and Kyngäs 2008). Such a methodological approach was taken because of the limited research in this area and because we wanted the data to drive the results. The second researcher conducted all interviews and, as such, performed the initial analysis by coding and re-coding all the content and deriving preliminary themes. Following this, these preliminary themes were discussed amongst authors, refined and re-refined until such a time that agreement was reached. The interview transcripts were also systematically reviewed by each researcher numerous times to identify common themes. In cases of ambiguity or disagreement, the researchers discussed these in detail until consensus was reached and themes were settled. Furthermore, this research is presented according to the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) checklist (O’Brien et al. 2014).

2.4 Ethics and consent

Before conducting this research, ethical clearance was obtained from the Cambridge Higher Education Research Ethics Committee on 25 May 2023 (REF: 2023.LT.52). The project began on 1 August 2023. Participants who wished to take part in the interview portion of this study received an information sheet and signed a written consent form prior to participating (Moore and Wigdorowitz 2024). Written and signed informed consent was obtained from all participants. We only shared anonymised transcripts on Apollo where we received permission to do so (and we failed to obtain final permission to share the full transcript of interview 3 although consent was obtained to quote portions of the interview). The study adheres to the Declaration of Helsinki.

3.1 Landscape analysis

Thirty-four CPPs were identified across a range of disciplines (for an overview see Table 2, Moore and Wigdorowitz 2024). We comprised a spreadsheet of CPPs based on our knowledge of existing projects, word of mouth, google searchers, including Cambridge department and society websites, as well as the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). Where it was unclear whether a CPP should be included, the authors had a discussion and came to a consensus. As mentioned, this list is likely not exhaustive but represents a significant proportion of community-led publishing initiatives in Cambridge. Information about each CPP was taken directly from what was available on their websites. It may be likely that some information is inaccurate, outdated, missing or has since changed, but it nonetheless provides a snapshot of these journals at Cambridge.

Our analysis shows that the first CPP was established in 1840 (Proceedings of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society) and the most recent CPP was established 184 years later, in 2024 (Cambridge Journal of Climate Research), suggesting that this publishing tradition is longstanding in Cambridge. The disciplinary coverage is varied and diverse, with a large contingent of CPPs covering Arts, Humanities and Social Science disciplines and some publishing as magazines or encyclopedia entries. The majority of initiatives classify themselves as journals, but we use the term community-led publishing project (CPP) to broadly capture all initiatives. A significant proportion (over two-thirds) are student-run, meaning that students perform all editorial roles (in most cases), while others are run by academics and library staff. Some CPPs are affiliated with societies or departments, while others appear to be standalone initiatives. Most are OA (n = 30, 88.2%) and 5 (14.7%) are listed on DOAJ.

3.2 Qualitative analysis

A total of nine semi-structured interviews (with 10 participants) were conducted online with representation from seven diverse journals across Cambridge. Table 3 provides an overview of the interviews, including information about the CPP, number of respondents per interview and length of interview. Note that two interviews were conducted each for the Cambridge Journal of Human Behaviour and Journal of Trainee Teacher Educational Research – one with the founder and the other with the then editor-in-chief. In addition, one interview comprised two respondents (Cambridge Journal of Visual Culture) while all the others had one respondent. All respondents were given the opportunity to review their transcripts prior to analysis and publication, and five were amended in some way. The approved transcripts are shared on Apollo (Moore and Wigdorowitz 2024).

The findings are presented across five main themes. These include (1) the structure of CPPs, including ‘what’ they encompass, (2) the motivations for ‘why’ they exist and ‘why’ people get involved with them, (3) ‘where’ the published content is available and accessible in terms of its openness and closure, (4) issues surrounding the aspects of publishing and the processes involved in ‘how’ this is done, and (5) the types of support needed by ‘who’ to continue and sustain the CPPs over time. A summary of the themes and sub-themes are presented in Table 4. Themes are not completely mutually exclusive and can overlap with other themes, but we have attempted to organise them in a systematic and meaningful way to capture the discussions that arose from the interviews. Each theme and corresponding sub-themes will be discussed in turn. We have identified illustrative quotes for each theme and have sought to contextualise these quotes where possible.

3.2.1 Structure

The following theme describes respondents’ responses to how CPPs are structured, particularly who is responsible for them, what forms of labour support these initiatives and the various scopes of projects.

3.2.1.1 Responsibility

Our results suggest that CPPs in Cambridge are predominantly run by students, but some are also run by current or retired academics:

This is unsurprising given the DIY nature of the publishing initiatives we identified, which have no involvement from professional publishers. However, it would be worth contrasting the labour undertaken for these kinds of initiatives with those supported by professional publishers. Much of academic publishing, not just editorial but many production tasks including copyediting and formatting, are now undertaken by unpaid academics and so it is important to not assume that professional publishing means significantly less work for academics (Vuong 2022, Pia AE et al. 2020). Nevertheless, it is true that professional publishing for the most part does mean that overall control of the production of the journal does rest with the publisher rather than the academics themselves. This is different for CPPs, which are organized without professional publishing involvement.

3.2.1.2 Voluntary nature

CPPs rely on the voluntary labour and efforts of their communities who run them, which is akin to many traditional editorial contributions across the academic publishing sphere (Wigdorowitz et al. 2024):

There is also space for a more formal workload model which includes engagement with the journal as part of one’s work allocation:

However, the primary reason for the existence of these CPPs is the vested interest and free labour of individuals who choose, through no obligation, to give of their time to run them. It appears that university departments do not provide specific in-kind support for editors to manage CPPs, nor do they provide financial support for infrastructure or associated costs.

3.2.1.3 Scope

CPPs have a wide-reaching scope with various inclusion/exclusion criteria of who gets to publish in them and who can hold editorial positions. Some CPPs have a Cambridge-based focus, publishing only works by students or researchers at the University, while others have expanded to include content from contributors outside of Cambridge. The scope of CPPs appears to be in flux and constantly evolving, with no stringent and unwavering criteria as the needs and purpose of them change. This is evident both in terms of CPPs’ editorship as well as the content and authorship:

The transitory nature of community-led publishing also made it challenging to identify and categorise CPPs. Editorship often changes between institution and so CPPs are not always based at Cambridge in perpetuity. This is another reason why the CPPs identified should not be considered exhaustive or complete for an extended period of time. The list is a simple snapshot of an ever-changing ecosystem that stretches far beyond the University of Cambridge itself.

3.2.2 Motivation

There are numerous reasons as to why people get involved in CPPs, but it is clear that there is a strong sense of care that people have for these initiatives and for the communities they serve.

3.2.2.1 Dedication and investment

All respondents had a strong sense of dedication and invested a great deal of time, effort and sometimes personal finances into their CPP. They found them to be labours of love, a common theme throughout scholar-led approaches to publishing (Pia et al. 2020):

While respondents clearly demonstrate a keen desire to give their time and resources to CPPs, an important distinction should be made about the potentially exploitative nature intrinsic to this type of publishing initiative, which can also be compared to the diamond OA movement in general. Positioning publishing as a labour of love can emphasise that it is work taken not as part of one’s job but more as a hobby or extracurricular activity. The work for CPPs can be recognised and institutionally supported, as some presses show, or it can be something unrecognised and undertaken for its own sake irrespective of remuneration or recognition. While this is not necessarily different to publishing work more generally, the work for CPPs is potentially more expansive than that within traditional publishing settings because editors are in charge of all aspects of the publishing process, not just the editorial side. This makes it all the more important for institutional supporters of community publishing to understand what this kind of publishing entails and to provide adequate support for it (as discussed below).

3.2.2.2 Uniqueness and value

Given the limited alternatives to traditional publishing avenues for academic and academic-related work, CPPs provide diverse opportunities for scholarly communication that overlaps with traditional journals but are also unique in terms of the content (e.g. themed issues), authors (e.g. undergraduates, artists) and/or readership (e.g. policymakers). This uniqueness is where the CPPs’ value lies and is a big reason why people are motivated to be involved with them. They prioritise the communities who may not otherwise have a place to contribute and access specific content:

CPPs publish alternative content in addition to traditional journal articles and in doing so, attract diverse contributors and audiences. These features lie at the core of CPPs unique contribution and value. Emanating from their disciplinary communities allows CPPs to publish the kinds of content they feel needs to be recognised or for which there are no other outlets.

3.2.2.3 Care for authors and communities

A large motivator for these CPPs was a genuine care for the communities that are being served by their contributions and accordingly being able to give something back to authors and readers in return:

The CPPs themselves are also considered objects of care. Respondents have high levels of respect for them, regarding them in high esteem and as valuable resources because they have worked conscientiously to ensure this is so. They may have also received positive feedback or high levels of engagement with the CPPs, solidifying their importance:

Care sets these CPPs apart from so called ‘cookie-cutter’ journals because they do not have any commercial incentives but are rather nurtured because they are worthwhile in their own right. Drawing on feminist ethics, care here refers to the more situated or local features of publishing that are valued intrinsically rather than instrumentally – or what Joan Tronto defines as “activity that includes everything we do to maintain, continue, and repair our ‘world’ so that we can live in it as well as possible” (Tronto 1993, 103). Care in publishing is opposed to commercial publishing because it focuses on supporting and maintaining publishing practices irrespective of their commercial value. This orients publishing practices towards a more expansive set of values, as the CPPs display, and allows publishers to foreground practices that may not be profitable or efficient (Moore 2025).

3.2.2.3 Pedagogical and professional development

There are educational and professional benefits involved in contributing to CPPs in the form of learning about the publishing landscape, practices and industry. Respondents acknowledge the expertise it takes to run and publish CPPs, and because of this, they gain specific skills that are viewed favourably:

The knowledge and experience gained from being involved in CPPs are professionally recognised and can be translated into tangible benefits that extend beyond the duration of involvement with the CPP. In this sense, CPPs provide pedagogical incentives. Being involved in CPPs can also add to one’s professional profile with various skills being gained in publishing and in relation to teamwork, collaboration and problem-solving to name a few:

Overall, there are various and wide-reaching reasons as to why people are involved in CPPs and together these motivations of pedagogy, disciplinary commitment, uniqueness of project and care for community provide a holistic picture of their existence.

3.2.3 Openness and closure

The second major theme is about openness (and closure) concerning ‘where’ the published content is available and accessible. Respondents had a complicated relationship with ideas of openness and OA publishing. While many CPPs were described as driven by open and public access to knowledge, these reasons were not always of primary concern. Instead, there is an interplay between openness and closure, reflective of the pragmatic decisions made by CPPs to, on the one hand, prioritise open and experimental approaches to publishing and, on the other hand, to ensure their work is sustainable and long-lasting in the form of a physical object.

3.2.3.1 Open access

While OA was not always an explicit motivation of the location and accessibility of the content, the idea of free and public access to knowledge was a noteworthy endeavour and was identified as a necessary means to reach both academic and non-academic readership:

However, some respondents were cautious and critical of the OA transformation in academic publishing, largely due to its financial feasibility:

It is important to note that few of the CPPs described their work in the language of the OA movement, such as through specific definitions of OA, adherence to Creative Commons licensing, the use of OA routes like ‘green’, ‘gold’ and ‘diamond’ and so on. CPPs from our study do not appear to emerge out of the OA movement per se, despite often showing an affinity for public access to knowledge, nor do they necessarily show deep understanding of the political economy of publishing that motivates OA. Rather, OA was (or was not) taken as a standard practice within the current structure of the CPPs:

3.2.3.2 Persistence of print

Along with the practices of online OA, some CPPs also engaged in more traditional practices of print publishing. The printed object is spoken about very highly and connects back to the care for the publishing process identified above. Many respondents spoke of print as ‘beautiful’ and associated it with a sense of tradition, legitimacy or professionalisation, an aspiration or something that was an expectation of their readership:

The persistence of print and the desire for OA also reveals a tension between openness and the need for certain kinds of closure. Respondents described their reliance on print subscriptions and the consequent need to embargo digital copies as reasons to encourage readers to purchase print copies:

The implementation of OA in these CPPs is often shaped by practical considerations rather than pure alignment with OA movements. While many CPPs embrace OA as a natural or pragmatic practice to reduce barriers to access, they face challenges related to financial sustainability, through print sales and subscriptions, and structural constraints. In addition, print practices persisted in some CPPs because they are a tangible resource and have professional appeal. This highlights the choices made for CPPs regarding the ideal of equitable knowledge dissemination and the practical realities of publishing in a resource-limited environment.

3.2.4 Aspects of publishing

This theme illustrates the different aspects of publishing undertaken within CPP approaches, including the processes involved in ‘how’ this is done.

3.2.4.1 Care for the craft of publishing

All respondents showed a real care for their publishing contributions, not only in the sense of professional design, but also for the scholarly aspects of their publishing projects, including in copyediting, subject knowledge and processes:

Such care contributes to the rigour and trustworthiness of the content being published.

3.2.4.2 ‘DIY’ approach

CPPs tend to employ a ‘DIY’ approach to getting things done within the confines of their available people capacity and resources. They are reasonably flexibly in how and when content is published and follow different timeframes that work for them and their audiences:

Some are also limited by the software and journal management services they use, which are typically not made-for-purpose. Yet, even with these restrictions, they make it work and are able to publish high-quality and diverse content, albeit with the content not always reviewed by all CPPs in the strictest sense of peer review:

The ‘DIY’ approach of these CPPs illustrates how adaptive and resourceful they are even with limited capacities. They often operate on flexible publication schedules tailored to editorial, contributor and/or audience needs. Despite software constraints, CPPs manage to produce high-quality and diverse content. Editorial practices vary, with some journals employing formal peer review or simplified processes focused on quality assurance rather than rigorous academic evaluation. Flexibility also extends to content format and length, allowing for varying solutions and levels of freedom among contributors.

3.2.4.3 Professionalism and publishing standards

Although many CPPs do what they can to publish content with the limited resources they have, many try to adhere to high publishing standards and professionalism comparable to that of traditional publishing models, such as having formal peer review and persistent identifiers:

The varying approaches CPPs bring to publishing illustrate the complexity and heterogeneity of this ecosystem. We should therefore avoid one-size-fits-all conceptualisations of these publishing models in comparison to traditional journals but rather view them as unique entities with their own methods and structures that sits within a wider publishing niche.

3.2.5 Support

It is the case that all publishing outlets require a diverse array of support to run and be sustainable. Support can take different forms but mainly includes financial, technological and human capital (Brun, Pontille, and Torny 2024). This is particularly salient for publishers who are independent, new and publish content from underrepresented researchers and disciplines. CPPs are no different in this regard and require varying forms of support which largely come from the available resources within their contexts and networks.

3.2.5.1 Community outreach and exposure

Support is needed in the form of community outreach initiatives which are key to spreading the word about the CPPs within a broader network. Such exposure allows these projects to share issues, calls for papers and other relevant news as well as to benefit by connecting with others who are involved in similar publishing initiatives:

Editorial members are also eager to promote and endorse the CPPs that they have worked on. Promotion is realised in a variety of ways, including through launches and events throughout Cambridge to showcase the content, make people aware of the CPP and connect with the broader community:

Effective community outreach and promotion are crucial for the growth and sustainability of CPPs. Building broader networks through various means as well as through collaborations helps raise awareness, attract submissions and engagement with content, and fosters the opportunity for connection with similar initiatives throughout the university. Respondents emphasised the importance of events, launches and creative strategies to showcase their work and engage both contributors and audiences. Establishing directories and building communication among CPPs can further enhance their collaborative efforts and provide a platform to address shared challenges, ultimately strengthening the community and increasing visibility.

3.2.5.2 Technical and financial support from the university

Quite possibly the most significant form of support for these CPPs is having the financial means to continue but not profit off the output. Funding sources noted by respondents come from university departments, colleges and clubs, subscriptions, sales of issues and external sponsorships:

In addition, other forms of support that usually require a financial investment but could be covered through the university to offset these costs could come in the form of workload adjustments, infrastructural support to host the journals, and promotional, administrative and educational support from the libraries and academics with publishing experience:

In addition to financial aspects, then, CPPs highlight the social need to share and receive advice, alongside more technical guidance from experts already housed within the university. Such comprehensive support would significantly enhance the efficiency and impact of CPPs while ensuring their longevity.

3.2.5.3 Handover and preservation

CPPs are particularly dynamic in their turnover of editorial members, with tenure ranging quite significantly from CPP to CPP:

Given the dynamism of the editorial roles of these CPPs, a smooth handover is crucial to their preservation. This frequent turnover necessitates smooth handovers to maintain continuity, yet challenges can arise, such as finding successors or helping new editors navigate steep learning curves:

Despite constant transitions, many CPPs achieve stability through dedicated core teams and plans for future recruitment, allowing for the preservation of institutional knowledge and operations. Overall, their resilience relies on structured transitions and passed-down wisdom.