The Editors’ Forum in the last Editors’ Update focused on how to achieve visibility for your journal. Some 88 editors participated, giving their views on the following question:

Visibility is key for the success of any scientific journal. How should this visibility be achieved?

A) It’s most important to promote the journal in order to build the community around that journal.
B) It’s most important to promote the scientific results published in the journal as ultimately we need the support of universities, funding bodies and the general public.
C) The focus should be on attracting the best authors. The quality content they publish promotes itself and visibility will follow.

While the majority (64%) of editors supported option C, attracting the best authors, this option was not without its controversy and challenges when put into practice. Many editors raised the issue of how to identify the best authors as problematic; one pointed out that the “best authors” often don’t stay the best and are only highly read and cited for a short period, while others were concerned about excluding good science from young scientists who have not yet made a name for themselves, arguing that “celebrity” authors are not necessarily a reliable indicator of good work. Finally, even if the good authors have been correctly identified, it remains a question of how to attract their papers in practice. One editor felt this could be achieved through increasing access to the content (to an open access model), others felt options A and B needed to play a role in this.

Option B, promoting the scientific results in the journal, was considered the most important aspect by 12% of editors. “Promotion of results is [of] vital importance for visibility of science and…for the journal…without advertisement there is no sale” one respondent noted, “we should be seeking to emphasise the value of the science that we publish as that is the real definition of quality. The more authors and other audiences appreciate the high status and quality of the research…, the more they are likely to identify with the journal and seek to place their best papers there.” This option also has its challenges, one editor remarks, “it is the most difficult approach as it requires both effort to identify and promote the best science, and receptive outlets which will further disseminate the scientific messages.”

Option A, promotion of the journal to build the journal community, received 7% of votes. Editors who supported this aspect felt the journal name was of key importance to visibility and that if journals are not promoted even the best scientific work can get “lost”. Some respondents felt that this aspect was of decreasing importance as journals move away from print towards electronic formats. Concerns raised by this option were the difficulty for multi-disciplinary journals to achieve this type of community and that such a focus might lead to the journal becoming a self-promoting club.