Case Report: Rebuilding an Editorial Board from the Ground Up

The Brief

A major international academic publisher approached Maverick Publishing Consultants with a straightforward but demanding brief: identify a new generation of editorial board members for one of their established peer-reviewed journals. The expectation was not simply to produce a list of names, but to deliver a structured, evidence-based shortlist of candidates who were genuinely active in the field, internationally distributed, and credible to the academic community the journal serves.

Our Approach

We designed a four-phase methodology that moved from broad data collection to individually verified candidate profiles.

Data Collection

The candidate universe was constructed from two primary sources: researchers who had published in the journal itself, and editorial board members of six competitor journals operating in the same discipline. With a primary focus on Europe and the China region, this process produced a structured dataset of nearly 13,000 records — broad enough to ensure that no significant researcher in the field would be overlooked.

Composite Scoring

To move from a large dataset to a meaningful ranking, we built a weighted composite scoring model. Each candidate was assessed across seven dimensions: H-Index, total publication output, category-normalised citation impact, international collaboration rate, Q1 journal presence, editorial experience, and publication history within the journal itself. The model was applied consistently across the full dataset, producing an objective, ranked list of candidates.

Top 300 Ranking

The highest-scoring candidates were consolidated into a Top 300 list. Editors-in-Chief and Managing Editors of competitor journals were excluded from the main ranking on conflict-of-interest grounds and documented separately for the client's reference.

Profile Verification

The final phase required moving beyond what the data could confirm. The top-ranked candidates were individually reviewed — current academic position, institutional affiliation, recent publication activity, alignment with the journal's editorial scope, and any existing commitments to competitor journals. Candidates who were found to be retired, emeritus, or could not be reliably identified were removed and replaced with the next qualified individual from the ranked list.

Outcome

We delivered a verified shortlist of 50 candidates spanning 18 countries. Each individual had been confirmed as research-active, holding a minimum position of Associate Professor, and assessed for fit with the journal's scope and positioning. The methodology, scoring criteria, and findings were documented in a structured client report, accompanied by three datasets covering the full bibliometric pool, the ranked Top 300 list, and the final verified profiles.

Takeaway

What this project required — and what we built the methodology around — was the ability to move from raw data to informed judgment at scale. The bibliometric analysis narrowed the field; the verification process made the shortlist defensible.

Client feedback

“The methodical approach to researching and delivering qualified insight on key opinion leaders really helped us in our selection process. The rigour with which the project was set up together with the speed of delivery and accuracy and usefulness of the data and insight delivered made this a really valuable piece of work to partner with Maverick in completing.”

If you are navigating a similar challenge with your editorial structure, we would be glad to discuss how this methodology might apply to your needs. Get in touch info@maverickpublishingconsultants.com