I-Ting Chen

Independent, niche journals play a vital role in advancing scholarly conversations that extend beyond the dominant paradigms of mainstream publishing. However, they remain acutely vulnerable to the structural pressures reshaping academic publishing. This conceptual paper examines the intersecting economic, technological, and cultural forces that challenge the sustainability of independent, non-profit journals, particularly those serving interdisciplinary or specialized scholarly communities. Drawing on both scholarly literature and the author’s anonymized reflections from editorial practice, the paper identifies systemic challenges: the consolidation of publishing power, the ascendancy of prestige metrics, shifts in library acquisition models, and the expanding influence of open access mandates. It further highlights strategies for resilience, such as strengthening author engagement, embedding journal content into teaching, and developing innovative outreach to librarians and scholarly networks. By situating these challenges within the broader transformation of the publishing ecosystem, the article provides both a critical diagnosis and a constructive road map for sustaining independent scholarly voices in an increasingly commercialized environment.

The Times Higher Education (THE) Impact Rankings (IR) have rapidly established themselves as a leading global instrument for assessing universities’ contributions to the United Nations Sustainable ...

Global university rankings increasingly position the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as indicators of institutional responsibility, yet their methodologies often privilege selective reporting, superficial compliance and audit‐driven performance. This article offers a conceptual alternative by developing an institutional ideal‐type framework: a nine‐stage Maturity Model for Authentic SDG Engagement in Higher Education. Extending and reinterpreting Crowther's CSR maturity framework, the model introduces a non‐linear spectrum from −1 Regressive Compliance to 7 Stewardship , capturing both organizational progression and the possibility of regression. Each stage is articulated through five analytical dimensions—intentionality; structures and processes; behavioural and cultural dynamics; risks and limitations; and implications for SDG integrity—drawing on institutional theory and Weberian ideal‐type construction. This design enables a systematic mapping of how universities embed, distort or symbolically enact the SDGs under varying governance contexts and ranking pressures. While grounded in concerns raised in the literature and in an empirical critique of the Times Higher Education Impact Rankings, the model does not aim to replace ranking systems. Instead, it offers a field‐informed diagnostic and developmental tool that clarifies the organizational conditions enabling meaningful SDG engagement. The article thus contributes to theory by advancing a new ideal‐type model of SDG maturity and to practice by supporting higher education institutions in strengthening the integrity, coherence and long‐term credibility of their sustainability commitments.