Library publishers often exist in a liminal space between “technical host” and “strategic publisher.” For years, eScholarship operated largely in the former category – providing platforming for important niche scholarship but lacking the mechanisms to encourage adoption of professional standards. We now recognize that this passive model was ultimately a disservice to our editors, authors, and readers: without adhering to transparent, community-established standards, journals risk being less discoverable, less relevant, and less likely to achieve sustainable funding.
To bridge this gap, eScholarship has, in the past several years, pivoted to a proactive, standards-based approach. In 2025, drawing on the JPPS framework, DOAJ criteria, and COPE guidelines, we developed a suite of evaluation rubrics to assess new journal proposals, audit existing journals, and measure the overall health of our own publishing program. These tools have allowed us to replace subjective “gut feeling” decision-making with more objective, transparent, and equitable processes, ensuring our limited resources are invested where they make the most impact.
This session offers a replicable framework for similarly professionalizing library publishing portfolios. After presenting our methodology and results, we will review the 3 rubrics in detail before shifting to a hands-on workshop. Attendees will receive modifiable rubric templates and work in small, host-facilitated groups to discuss how adapting these standards to their own local contexts could move us collectively towards a shared model of quality and accountability in library-based publishing.
