Empowering scholarship: Young researcher-led journals as spaces for learning, envisioning, and experimenting with alternatives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents reflections and experience-based perspectives on the potential of young researcher-led journals, such as plaNext – Next Generation Planning, to generate a space for learning from and networking with peers and senior scholars, as well as empowering young researchers and creating new ideas. Its original dialogue-based format is drawn from a two-hour online conversation that took place on March 7, 2025, between founding and current editorial members of plaNext. The discussion was recorded, then transcribed and polished, while leaving the main core of the discussion and tone intact. It was structured around a series of guiding questions prepared by the editors of this special issue, who adopted a qualitative research approach situated between focus groups and semi-structured interview formats. As such, the themes addressed were guided, while still allowing space for personal reflections and open expression. The resulting article is organized into five main thematic sections. The first explores the motivations that led participants to found or join the editorial team of plaNext, detailing its genesis as a collective initiative led by early career academics seeking to resist and challenge the competitive and exclusionary practices of academic publishing by offering a more inclusive and supportive environment for young scholars. The second section examines the tension between creatively innovating within the publishing system while maintaining scientific credibility and appeal. The third addresses the ethical challenges of adopting a supportive yet rigorous editorial approach, as well as the complexities of navigating diverse editorial roles and responsibilities. The fourth focuses on lessons learned from previous editorial experiences and how they could shape the vision and future direction of the journal. It also touches upon how the cross-cutting skills developed through editorial work can support career pathways both within and beyond academia. The final section presents general reflections and concrete suggestions for recognizing and valuing the work of reviewers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.059 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.044 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".