In an earlier editorial (Davison, 2019), I asked the question “For whom do we, as authors, write?” and drew on responses from a group of 10 international scholars to examine three possible audiences: reviewers, readers, and self. In this editorial, I use a similar approach to ask a related question, but this time focusing on the characteristics of an academic journal that make it attractive to prospective authors. I identified a dozen or so potential respondents (of whom 10 replied) and asked them: “Ignoring questions of ranking and any list of preferred journals that your department may prefer you to publish in, what are the characteristics of a journal that you (as a potential author) identify as contributing to its relevance or appropriateness as an outlet for your research?” I deliberately asked my respondents not to think about journal ranking indices or departmental lists because I reasoned that these might exert a strong bias on the responses, even to the exclusion of all other issues. My reason for asking about the journal characteristics that authors find compelling is perhaps self-serving, but it is inextricably linked to the ethos of a journal and its editor(s). The argument is anthropomorphic, but I suggest that each journal exists in a self-created intellectual niche. Naturally, this niche may be narrower or broader, and in some journals, it may be so wide that almost any paper is in principle in scope. However, the advantage of a focused niche is that it encourages a focus on specific types of research topics, questions, and methods, to serve a certain community of readers, and thereby to make a certain contribution to certain discourses. Naturally, some journals are more specialised (with more restricted niches) than others. Whatever the niche, journals need to retain their relevance for their audience, lest they lose their raison d'être. There could be many indicators of a journal facing relevance challenges: falling submission numbers, falling acceptance rates, falling impact factor, people's reluctance to review, exclusion from indices or lists of preferred journals. This is a conundrum for editors because a journal's relevance largely depends on submissions being appropriate for the niche, as identified by the editors and confirmed by the reviewers and audience. Special issues may provide focused means of attracting submissions, but apart from this, authors vote with their fingers: If they choose to shun a journal for whatever reason, that journal's relevance can be seriously challenged. If this happens, some deep soul searching may be called for, and perhaps a change of editorial direction, ie, a refocus as to the types of articles that the journal publicly states it wants to publish. I can anticipate situations, however, where a journal is hi-jacked by a particular interest group which tries to orient it towards their own needs, by flooding it with submissions that conform to a certain type, genre, method, philosophy, or epistemology. If the journal is happy to play along, then the result may be positive for both the Machiavellian interlopers and the journal itself, though other potential authors may be disappointed and dissuaded from submitting. The situation is particularly problematic if the journal is highly ranked as potential contributing authors may then feel that the number of top journals that they can submit to has dwindled further. Existing members of the editorial board will also need to decide whether to stay with the new ethos or to seek greener pastures elsewhere, assuming that they are not shuffled aside altogether. Nevertheless, so long as a critical mass of submitting authors, editors, reviewers, subscribers, readers, and citers exists, the journal's intellectual health may be retained with the new focus: no journal can survive long without an appreciative audience, an army of loyal soldiers who will robustly flock to its defence in times of difficulty. Many characteristics are likely to reflect the values of the journal and its editorial team. These include the following: the types of papers published; the nature of the review process, including whether reviews are perceived to be DOI: 10.1111/isj.12276

中文翻译：

---

哪些期刊特征最能吸引投稿？

在较早的一篇社论（戴维森，2019 年）中，我问了一个问题：“作为作者，我们为谁写作？” 并借鉴了 10 位国际学者的回答，研究了三种可能的受众：评论者、读者和自我。在这篇社论中，我使用了类似的方法来提出相关问题，但这次侧重于学术期刊的特点，使其对潜在作者具有吸引力。我确定了十几个潜在的受访者（其中 10 个回答）并问他们：“忽略排名问题和您的部门可能希望您发表的任何首选期刊列表，您（作为潜在作者）认为期刊的哪些特征有助于其作为研究出口的相关性或适当性？” 我特意让我的受访者不要考虑期刊排名指数或部门列表，因为我认为这些可能会对回答产生强烈的偏见，甚至排除所有其他问题。我询问作者认为引人注目的期刊特征的原因可能是为了自我服务，但这与期刊及其编辑的精神密不可分。这个论点是拟人化的，但我建议每个期刊都存在于一个自我创造的知识领域。自然，这个领域可能更窄或更广，在某些期刊中，它可能非常广泛，以至于几乎所有论文原则上都在范围内。然而，专注利基的优势在于它鼓励关注特定类型的研究主题、问题和方法，以服务于特定的读者群体，从而为特定的话语做出一定的贡献。自然，有些期刊比其他期刊更专业（具有更多限制的利基）。无论是什么利基市场，期刊都需要保持与受众的相关性，以免失去存在的理由。期刊面临相关性挑战的指标可能有很多：提交数量下降、接受率下降、影响因子下降、人们不愿审阅、被排除在索引或首选期刊列表之外。这对编辑来说是一个难题，因为期刊的相关性在很大程度上取决于提交是否适合该领域，由编辑确定并由审稿人和观众确认。特刊可能会提供吸引投稿的集中方式，但除此之外，作者会用手指投票：如果他们出于任何原因选择避开期刊，那么该期刊的相关性可能会受到严重挑战。如果发生这种情况，可能需要进行一些深入的反省，也许需要改变编辑方向，即重新关注期刊公开声明要发表的文章类型。然而，我可以预见一种情况，一个期刊被一个特定的利益集团劫持，该组织试图将期刊定位于他们自己的需求，通过大量提交符合某种类型、流派、方法、哲学或认识论的投稿。如果杂志乐意一起玩，那么结果可能对马基雅维利的闯入者和期刊本身都是积极的，尽管其他潜在的作者可能会失望并劝阻提交。如果期刊排名很高，那么这种情况尤其成问题，因为潜在的贡献作者可能会觉得他们可以提交的顶级期刊数量进一步减少。编辑委员会的现有成员还需要决定是坚持新的精神还是到别处寻找更绿色的牧场，假设他们没有被完全洗牌。尽管如此，只要提交的作者、编辑、审稿人、订阅者、读者和引用者的数量达到临界量，期刊的知识健康就可以通过新的关注点来保持：没有读者欣赏，任何期刊都无法生存，一支忠诚的士兵军队，他们会在困难时期积极涌入防御。许多特征可能反映了期刊及其编辑团队的价值观。其中包括： 发表的论文类型；审核流程的性质，包括审核是否被视为 DOI：10.1111/isj.12276