Evaluation Criteria

Navigation: Resources > For Societies, Editors-in-Chief & Journal Proposals > Evaluation Criteria

This resource sets out CorayNova Academic Press's publisher-level criteria for evaluating journal proposals, relaunch proposals, transfer proposals, hosted journal cooperation, and society or institutional partnership proposals.

Evaluation is qualitative, evidence-based, and proportionate to the proposed journal's scope, complexity, risk, and stage of development. CorayNova does not rely on a single metric, indicator, market forecast, institutional relationship, or commercial expectation to decide whether a proposal should proceed.

· Evaluation Criteria Matrix

CorayNova evaluates proposals against academic, editorial, ethical, operational, platform, and sustainability criteria. The criteria below may be applied flexibly according to proposal type, journal stage, field complexity, and available evidence.

Criterion
What CorayNova Evaluates

Scholarly need
Whether the journal addresses a genuine field need, community need, emerging topic, interdisciplinary gap, or underserved scholarly area.

Scope clarity
Whether aims and scope are precise, differentiated, manageable, and understandable to authors, readers, editors, reviewers, and indexers.

Field fit
Whether the proposed field and community align with CorayNova's publishing mission, expertise, platform capacity, and long-term development direction.

Differentiation
Whether the proposal avoids unnecessary duplication with existing CorayNova journals or other field journals.

Editorial leadership
Whether the proposed Editor-in-Chief and editorial leadership have appropriate academic credibility, availability, independence, and governance readiness.

Editorial board capacity
Whether the proposed board plan covers the field, has suitable expertise, manages conflicts, and can support responsible editorial work.

Peer review capacity
Whether the proposed peer review model, reviewer network, decision process, and quality controls are realistic and transparent.

Ethics risk
Whether the field, article types, special issues, conflicts, human/animal research, personal data, or other factors create risks that can be managed.

Research integrity safeguards
Whether the proposal addresses data, images, methods, reporting guidelines, authorship, AI use, competing interests, and post-publication responsibilities.

Operational feasibility
Whether platform setup, workflow, editorial office support, production, publication frequency, training, and communication are realistic.

Metadata readiness
Whether the proposal can support DOI, ORCID where provided, funding metadata, references where available, license display, and correction/retraction linking.

OA and compliance readiness
Whether the proposed access, APC, waiver, copyright, license, and repository information can be stated transparently.

Financial sustainability
Whether the funding, APC, institutional, society, or partnership model is realistic and separated from editorial decisions.

Long-term preservation
Whether the proposal addresses PKP Preservation Network eligibility, DOI persistence, platform records, backups, metadata maintenance, and any additional preservation arrangement.

Alignment with CorayNova policies
Whether the journal can operate under CorayNova's publisher-level policies on editorial independence, peer review, ethics, fees, licensing, privacy, accessibility, preservation, and complaints.

· Commercial and Institutional Considerations

Market demand, institutional support, society support, APC or funding model, sponsorship, outreach potential, and partnership opportunity may be considered. These considerations must not override scholarly quality, ethics, editorial independence, transparency, research integrity, or long-term sustainability.

Institutional arrangements, sponsorship, APCs, discounts, waivers, commercial cooperation, marketing support, hosting arrangements, or partnership discussions do not influence manuscript-level editorial assessment, peer review, acceptance, rejection, correction, retraction, expression of concern, article removal, or appeal outcomes.

Consideration
Boundary

Market or community demand
Can support the academic case but cannot substitute for scholarly need, scope clarity, and editorial capacity.

Institutional or society support
Can strengthen sustainability but cannot influence editorial independence or manuscript decisions.

APC or funding model
Can be evaluated for transparency and viability but cannot determine acceptance of manuscripts or suppress legitimate editorial actions.

Sponsorship or partnership
Can support operations when transparent and controlled but cannot override policy, ethics, or peer review standards.

Brand or strategic fit
Can be considered as part of publisher responsibility but must be evaluated alongside scholarly, ethical, and operational factors.

· Evaluation Process and Outcomes

CorayNova may ask proposers to revise a proposal, provide additional evidence, clarify governance, address conflicts of interest, strengthen editorial board plans, revise the scope, improve ethics safeguards, or modify the operational model before a decision is made.

CorayNova may invite external advisers, subject experts, editorial consultants, or publisher-designated reviewers to participate in proposal review where needed. Participants must respect confidentiality and disclose relevant conflicts of interest.

Outcome
Meaning

Proceed
The proposal may move to agreement, governance setup, platform planning, launch readiness review, or another approved next step.

Revise and Resubmit Proposal
The proposal has potential but requires substantial revision before further evaluation.

Hold for Further Development
The proposal may be premature, underdeveloped, or dependent on conditions that must mature before evaluation proceeds.

Decline
The proposal does not meet CorayNova's academic, editorial, ethical, operational, policy, sustainability, or strategic requirements at this time.

Criterion	What CorayNova Evaluates
Scholarly need	Whether the journal addresses a genuine field need, community need, emerging topic, interdisciplinary gap, or underserved scholarly area.
Scope clarity	Whether aims and scope are precise, differentiated, manageable, and understandable to authors, readers, editors, reviewers, and indexers.
Field fit	Whether the proposed field and community align with CorayNova's publishing mission, expertise, platform capacity, and long-term development direction.
Differentiation	Whether the proposal avoids unnecessary duplication with existing CorayNova journals or other field journals.
Editorial leadership	Whether the proposed Editor-in-Chief and editorial leadership have appropriate academic credibility, availability, independence, and governance readiness.
Editorial board capacity	Whether the proposed board plan covers the field, has suitable expertise, manages conflicts, and can support responsible editorial work.
Peer review capacity	Whether the proposed peer review model, reviewer network, decision process, and quality controls are realistic and transparent.
Ethics risk	Whether the field, article types, special issues, conflicts, human/animal research, personal data, or other factors create risks that can be managed.
Research integrity safeguards	Whether the proposal addresses data, images, methods, reporting guidelines, authorship, AI use, competing interests, and post-publication responsibilities.
Operational feasibility	Whether platform setup, workflow, editorial office support, production, publication frequency, training, and communication are realistic.
Metadata readiness	Whether the proposal can support DOI, ORCID where provided, funding metadata, references where available, license display, and correction/retraction linking.
OA and compliance readiness	Whether the proposed access, APC, waiver, copyright, license, and repository information can be stated transparently.
Financial sustainability	Whether the funding, APC, institutional, society, or partnership model is realistic and separated from editorial decisions.
Long-term preservation	Whether the proposal addresses PKP Preservation Network eligibility, DOI persistence, platform records, backups, metadata maintenance, and any additional preservation arrangement.
Alignment with CorayNova policies	Whether the journal can operate under CorayNova's publisher-level policies on editorial independence, peer review, ethics, fees, licensing, privacy, accessibility, preservation, and complaints.

Consideration	Boundary
Market or community demand	Can support the academic case but cannot substitute for scholarly need, scope clarity, and editorial capacity.
Institutional or society support	Can strengthen sustainability but cannot influence editorial independence or manuscript decisions.
APC or funding model	Can be evaluated for transparency and viability but cannot determine acceptance of manuscripts or suppress legitimate editorial actions.
Sponsorship or partnership	Can support operations when transparent and controlled but cannot override policy, ethics, or peer review standards.
Brand or strategic fit	Can be considered as part of publisher responsibility but must be evaluated alongside scholarly, ethical, and operational factors.

Outcome	Meaning
Proceed	The proposal may move to agreement, governance setup, platform planning, launch readiness review, or another approved next step.
Revise and Resubmit Proposal	The proposal has potential but requires substantial revision before further evaluation.
Hold for Further Development	The proposal may be premature, underdeveloped, or dependent on conditions that must mature before evaluation proceeds.
Decline	The proposal does not meet CorayNova's academic, editorial, ethical, operational, policy, sustainability, or strategic requirements at this time.