From advocacy to scholarly professionalisation: A reflective case study of the evolution and strategic repositioning of World Nutrition (2010–2025)

Abstract

Background
Association-owned journals often navigate tensions between mission-driven advocacy and the demands
of scholarly publishing, including formalising peer review, meeting production standards, and
fulfilling indexing requirements.
Objective
This article presents a reflective case study of the evolution of World Nutrition, the journal of
the World Public Health Nutrition Association, from 2010 to 2025. It examines how editorial
governance, peer-review processes, production infrastructure, and content strategy evolved during
this period.
Methods
A retrospective institutional review was conducted using archival publication records, editorial
documentation, and descriptive publication data. Key phases of development were identified and
analysed, with attention to internal drivers (leadership transitions, resource constraints,
governance reforms) and external influences (publishing standards, indexing criteria, and
open-access competition).
Results
The journal evolved from an advocacy-oriented platform dominated by commentaries and editorials
into a peer-reviewed publication with a broader range of article types and standardised production
processes. Leadership restructuring, formalised peer review, adoption of online manuscript
management, and the progressive professionalisation of production were temporally associated with
increased research output and operational stability. However, limitations in historical submission
data constrain causal inference.
Conclusion
The experience of World Nutrition shows how mission-driven journals can advance scholarly
professionalisation while upholding normative commitments. Although based on a single case, the
analysis highlights governance reform, process transparency, and production standardisation as
interdependent elements that strengthen institutional resilience and
readiness for indexing.