Sign In

  1. Home
  2. Quality Assurance & Continuous Improvement Framework

Sami Publishing Company

Quality Assurance & Continuous Improvement Framework

Publisher-Level Framework
Version 1.0 | 2026

  1. Purpose

Sami Publishing Company (SPC) recognizes quality assurance and continuous improvement as integral components of responsible scholarly publishing.

The purpose of this Quality Assurance & Continuous Improvement Framework is to establish a publisher-level approach for reviewing, evaluating, and improving the quality, integrity, transparency, and reliability of SPC's publishing activities.

This Framework complements the SPC Editorial Governance Manual and the SPC Publishing Policies & Standards. It does not replace the editorial policies or operational procedures established by individual SPC journals.

The Framework provides a common foundation for identifying strengths, recognizing areas requiring attention, implementing appropriate improvements, and reviewing the effectiveness of those improvements over time.

SPC considers quality assurance an ongoing responsibility rather than a one-time exercise or a process defined solely by external recognition, indexing, rankings, or individual performance indicators.

 

  1. Scope

This Framework applies at the publisher level to the scholarly publishing activities of SPC and provides a common quality-assurance approach for its journals and other scholarly publications, where applicable.

Areas that may be considered within the framework include:

  • editorial governance;
  • editorial independence;
  • editorial operations;
  • peer-review processes;
  • publication ethics and research integrity;
  • publication reliability;
  • metadata and scholarly infrastructure;
  • transparency of publishing information;
  • author and reviewer experience;
  • journal development;
  • discoverability and scholarly communication;
  • post-publication management; and
  • implementation of applicable publisher and journal policies.

The specific indicators, procedures, and frequency of assessment may vary according to the discipline, size, publication model, and operational characteristics of each journal.

 

  1. SPC's Approach to Quality

SPC understands publishing quality as a multidimensional concept.

Quality may be reflected in the effectiveness of editorial processes, the integrity of published research, the reliability of publication practices, the transparency of information, the quality of scholarly infrastructure, and the ability of the publisher and its journals to identify and address weaknesses.

Accordingly, SPC does not define quality through a single metric, database, ranking, citation indicator, acceptance rate, or external evaluation.

External evaluations and indexing decisions may provide useful information, but they represent only one part of a broader assessment of publishing quality.

SPC therefore seeks to consider processes, evidence, outcomes, and improvement together.

 

  1. Principles of Quality Assurance

SPC's quality-assurance activities are guided by the following principles.

4.1 Evidence-Based Assessment

Wherever reasonably possible, assessments should be based on accurate, relevant, and verifiable information.

4.2 Editorial Independence

Quality assurance must respect the legitimate independence of editors in making scholarly and editorial decisions.

4.3 Transparency

Relevant standards, responsibilities, and quality-related information should be communicated clearly and, where appropriate, made publicly accessible.

4.4 Accountability

Responsibilities for quality-related activities should be appropriately defined, and significant decisions or actions should be documented where necessary.

4.5 Proportionality

Quality-assurance activities should be proportionate to the nature, scale, discipline, and operational characteristics of each publication.

4.6 Consistency

Publisher-level principles should be applied consistently while allowing journals to maintain legitimate disciplinary differences.

4.7 Continuous Improvement

Identified weaknesses should provide an opportunity for corrective, preventive, or developmental action.

 

  1. The Quality Improvement Cycle

SPC uses a continuous improvement approach based on the following cycle:

Define → Monitor → Evaluate → Improve → Review

Define

Establish appropriate policies, standards, responsibilities, and objectives.

Monitor

Collect and review relevant information concerning publishing processes and outcomes.

Evaluate

Consider the available evidence against applicable policies, standards, and objectives.

Improve

Implement appropriate corrective, preventive, or developmental actions where necessary.

Review

Assess whether the actions taken have been effective and determine whether further improvement is appropriate.

This cycle is intended to ensure that quality assurance contributes to actual improvement rather than becoming a purely administrative exercise.

 

  1. Editorial Quality

SPC supports periodic consideration of the quality and effectiveness of editorial processes within its journals.

Depending on the journal, relevant areas may include:

  • alignment between published content and the journal's stated scope;
  • manuscript assessment procedures;
  • editorial decision-making;
  • peer-review practices;
  • editorial board participation;
  • publication regularity;
  • implementation of journal policies;
  • management of conflicts of interest;
  • handling of ethical concerns; and
  • consistency of editorial procedures.

The purpose of such assessment is to identify opportunities for improvement rather than to impose a single editorial model on all journals.

 

  1. Peer-Review Quality

SPC recognizes peer review as an important component of scholarly quality assurance.

Individual journals determine their peer-review models and procedures according to their disciplinary and editorial requirements.

Where appropriate, quality review may consider:

  • the appropriateness of reviewer selection;
  • reviewer expertise;
  • review completion;
  • review timeliness;
  • conflicts of interest;
  • confidentiality;
  • the relevance and usefulness of reviewer reports; and
  • the consistency between peer-review information and editorial decisions.

Quantitative indicators should not be interpreted in isolation.

For example, a shorter review period does not necessarily indicate higher quality if it results from inadequate scholarly assessment.

 

  1. Publication Ethics and Research Integrity

Research and publication integrity are central to SPC's approach to quality.

Quality assurance may therefore include consideration of the implementation of policies addressing:

  • plagiarism and inappropriate text reuse;
  • duplicate or redundant publication;
  • authorship and contributorship;
  • conflicts of interest;
  • research misconduct;
  • manipulated peer review;
  • inappropriate data or image manipulation;
  • ethical oversight;
  • inappropriate use of artificial intelligence;
  • corrections;
  • retractions; and
  • expressions of concern.

SPC's objective is not to maximize the number of misconduct cases identified. The objective is to maintain appropriate mechanisms for identifying, assessing, documenting, and responding to legitimate concerns.

 

  1. Publication Reliability

Reliable and consistent publication is an important part of scholarly communication.

Where applicable, SPC may review:

  • publication schedules;
  • issue regularity;
  • article processing;
  • accuracy of publication information;
  • DOI assignment;
  • metadata availability;
  • accessibility of published content;
  • website functionality; and
  • post-publication maintenance.

Where significant deviations or recurring problems are identified, appropriate corrective action may be considered.

 

  1. Metadata and Scholarly Infrastructure

Accurate and consistent metadata contributes to the discoverability, interoperability, citation tracking, and long-term integrity of scholarly publications.

Where applicable, SPC may review the quality and consistency of:

  • article titles;
  • author names;
  • affiliations;
  • ORCID identifiers;
  • abstracts;
  • keywords;
  • references;
  • DOI information;
  • publication dates;
  • licensing information; and
  • other relevant bibliographic metadata.

Technical or metadata problems that are identified should be addressed within the practical capabilities of the publisher and the relevant journal.

 

  1. Author and Reviewer Experience

SPC recognizes authors and reviewers as important participants in the scholarly communication process.

Where appropriate, journals may review information concerning:

  • clarity of submission requirements;
  • communication with authors;
  • transparency of editorial procedures;
  • clarity of editorial decisions;
  • review timelines;
  • reviewer communication;
  • accessibility of publishing information; and
  • recurring operational difficulties.

Feedback may be used to identify opportunities for improvement.

Author or reviewer satisfaction, however, should not override legitimate scholarly, ethical, or editorial requirements.

 

  1. Editorial and Publishing Development

SPC recognizes that the quality of a journal depends not only on individual decisions but also on the continuing development of its editorial and publishing practices.

Where appropriate, SPC may support:

  • editorial training;
  • professional development;
  • policy updates;
  • improvement of editorial workflows;
  • development of publishing infrastructure;
  • improvement of metadata and discoverability;
  • research-integrity awareness; and
  • communication of relevant developments in scholarly publishing.

Training and development should be proportionate to the responsibilities of the individuals involved.

 

  1. Journal Development and Periodic Review

SPC may periodically review the development of individual journals.

Such review may consider a combination of:

  • editorial performance;
  • publication regularity;
  • peer-review practices;
  • publication ethics;
  • research-integrity matters;
  • content development;
  • author and reviewer participation;
  • editorial board engagement;
  • international scholarly participation;
  • metadata quality;
  • discoverability;
  • implementation of policies; and
  • relevant external evaluations.

No single indicator should automatically determine the overall assessment of a journal.

The purpose of periodic review is to identify strengths, weaknesses, risks, and opportunities for sustainable development.

 

  1. External Evaluation and Indexing

SPC recognizes the value of independent evaluation by indexing and abstracting services, scholarly databases, libraries, and other relevant organizations.

External evaluations may provide useful evidence concerning the strengths or weaknesses of a journal.

SPC does not, however, regard inclusion in—or exclusion from—any single database or indexing service as a complete measure of publishing quality.

Where an external evaluation identifies a legitimate area requiring attention, SPC may consider the finding as part of its broader quality-assurance and improvement process.

External recognition is therefore regarded as one source of evidence, not the definition of quality itself.

 

  1. Corrective, Preventive, and Developmental Actions

When a significant weakness or recurring problem is identified, SPC or the relevant journal may consider an appropriate response.

Depending on the circumstances, actions may include:

  • correcting inaccurate information;
  • revising a policy or procedure;
  • improving an editorial workflow;
  • providing additional training;
  • clarifying responsibilities;
  • improving technical infrastructure;
  • strengthening documentation;
  • increasing monitoring; or
  • introducing another proportionate improvement.

SPC distinguishes, where appropriate, between:

Corrective Action
Action taken to address an identified problem.

Preventive Action
Action intended to reduce the likelihood of a similar problem occurring in the future.

Developmental Action
Action intended to strengthen an existing practice even when no specific failure has occurred.

The objective is sustainable improvement rather than merely resolving an individual incident.

 

  1. Evidence and Documentation

Quality-assurance activities should be supported by appropriate evidence and documentation.

Depending on the nature of the activity, evidence may include:

  • published policies;
  • editorial records;
  • peer-review records;
  • publication schedules;
  • metadata assessments;
  • quality reviews;
  • training records;
  • corrective-action records;
  • website reviews;
  • external evaluation reports; and
  • other relevant operational information.

Confidential editorial and personal information should be protected appropriately and should not be disclosed merely for quality-assurance purposes.

SPC seeks to maintain a reasonable balance between evidence, transparency, confidentiality, and data protection.

 

  1. Policy Implementation and Effectiveness

SPC recognizes that the publication of a policy does not, by itself, demonstrate effective governance.

Accordingly, quality assurance may consider whether important policies are:

  • clearly communicated;
  • accessible to relevant stakeholders;
  • understood by those responsible for implementation;
  • reflected in actual editorial and publishing practices;
  • appropriately documented;
  • periodically reviewed; and
  • revised when evidence indicates that improvement is necessary.

The central question is therefore not simply:

Does the policy exist?

but also:

Is the policy implemented effectively, supported by appropriate evidence, and improved when necessary?

 

  1. Risk-Based Quality Management

Not all publishing risks have the same significance.

SPC may therefore prioritize quality-assurance activities according to the potential effect of an issue on:

  • research integrity;
  • editorial independence;
  • the reliability of the scholarly record;
  • authors and reviewers;
  • readers;
  • transparency; or
  • the reputation and sustainability of a journal.

Issues that may materially affect the integrity of the scholarly record or the independence of editorial decision-making should receive appropriate priority.

This risk-based approach allows quality-assurance activities to remain practical and proportionate to the operational context of SPC and its journals.

 

  1. Continuous Improvement

SPC considers continuous improvement an organizational responsibility.

Improvement priorities may arise from:

  • internal quality reviews;
  • editorial experience;
  • author or reviewer feedback;
  • publication-ethics cases;
  • technical developments;
  • external evaluations;
  • changes in scholarly publishing standards;
  • emerging risks; or
  • opportunities identified through routine monitoring.

Improvement priorities should be considered according to their significance, feasibility, available evidence, and potential benefit to scholarly publishing.

 

  1. Review of the Framework

This Framework will be reviewed periodically to ensure that it remains appropriate for the evolving publishing environment and the needs of SPC and its journals.

Revisions may be considered in response to:

  • developments in scholarly publishing;
  • changes in relevant standards or guidance;
  • technological developments;
  • organizational changes;
  • experience gained through implementation;
  • identified risks; or
  • opportunities for improvement.

The current version of the Framework should be identified clearly on the SPC website.

Current Version: 1.0
Year of Publication: 2026
Responsible Organization: Sami Publishing Company

 

  1. Commitment to Quality

Sami Publishing Company recognizes that quality assurance is not a destination but a continuing process.

SPC seeks to maintain a publishing environment in which:

  • quality is assessed through appropriate evidence;
  • policies are connected to actual practice;
  • editorial independence is protected;
  • research integrity is actively supported;
  • publishing processes are periodically reviewed;
  • identified weaknesses are addressed proportionately;
  • improvements are documented where appropriate; and
  • successful improvements are incorporated into ongoing publishing practice.

SPC's commitment to quality is therefore reflected not only in the standards it establishes, but also in its willingness to examine its own practices, learn from evidence and experience, and improve continuously.

Quality in scholarly publishing is strengthened when sound policies, responsible practice, reliable evidence, and continuous improvement work together.

Sami Publishing Company
Quality Assurance & Continuous Improvement Framework
Publisher-Level Framework
Version 1.0 | 2026