Signs Your Journal Website Needs a Redesign

Your journal website is often the first impression potential authors and readers have of your publication. An outdated or poorly functioning site doesn't just look unprofessional—it actively discourages submissions, undermines credibility, and can even harm your indexing prospects. Here's how to recognise when your journal website has become a liability rather than an asset.

Visual Warning Signs

The Site Looks Dated

Web design trends evolve, and sites that looked modern five years ago now appear antiquated. Telltale signs include: small text designed for older monitors, cramped layouts without breathing room, outdated colour schemes, low-resolution images, and absence of modern design elements like cards, subtle shadows, or clean typography.

Authors and reviewers encounter modern, polished websites daily. When your journal site looks like it hasn't been updated since 2010, visitors unconsciously question whether the journal itself has kept pace with developments in the field.

Inconsistent Branding

Has your institution updated its logo, colours, or visual identity while your journal site retained the old look? Inconsistency between your journal and its parent institution creates confusion and appears unprofessional. Journal sites should align with current institutional branding while maintaining their own identity.

Poor Typography and Readability

Difficult-to-read text signals neglect. Watch for: fonts too small or too large, insufficient contrast between text and background, excessive line lengths that tire readers' eyes, cramped line spacing, and inconsistent heading styles. Modern sites prioritise readability with well-chosen fonts and comfortable spacing.

Functional Problems

Mobile Experience Failure

More researchers than ever access content on phones and tablets. If your site requires pinching, zooming, and horizontal scrolling on mobile devices, you're failing a significant portion of your audience. Responsive design—layouts that adapt to screen size—has been standard practice for years. Sites without it are demonstrably outdated.

Test your site on a smartphone. Can you easily navigate, read articles, and complete submissions? If not, mobile users are bouncing away to journals that respect their devices.

Slow Loading Times

Patience is limited online. If your journal site takes more than a few seconds to load, visitors leave. Common causes include unoptimised images, bloated code, inadequate hosting, or outdated software running inefficiently. Speed affects not just user experience but also search engine rankings—Google explicitly penalises slow sites.

Navigation Confusion

Visitors should find what they need within seconds. If your navigation requires multiple clicks to reach common destinations, uses unclear labels, or hides important pages in dropdown menus, users struggle unnecessarily. Poor navigation increases bounce rates and reduces successful submissions.

Broken Features

Links that lead nowhere, forms that don't submit, search functions that return errors, and files that won't download—these broken elements destroy trust instantly. A single broken link might be forgiven; patterns of dysfunction suggest a journal that doesn't maintain its infrastructure.

Technical Indicators

Outdated Platform Version

Running old software versions creates multiple problems. Security vulnerabilities accumulate as patches aren't applied. New features and improvements remain inaccessible. Compatibility issues arise as browsers and devices evolve. If your OJS installation is multiple versions behind current release, technical debt compounds with each passing month.

Security Concerns

Does your site lack HTTPS (showing "Not Secure" in browsers)? Are you running software with known security vulnerabilities? Have you experienced unexplained issues that might indicate compromise? Security gaps endanger author data, damage reputation, and increasingly affect search rankings. Modern journals must prioritise security.

No Analytics or Insights

If you don't know how many people visit your site, where they come from, which content they access, or where they leave, you're operating blind. Basic analytics should inform decisions about content, navigation, and improvements. Lack of tracking means lack of insight.

User Experience Red Flags

Complaints from Authors

When authors regularly contact you with submission problems, can't find author guidelines, or struggle to complete forms, your site is creating friction. Each complaint represents many more silent users who simply gave up. Take author feedback seriously—they're revealing genuine problems.

Declining Submissions

Multiple factors influence submission rates, but website experience is among them. Authors comparing journals often eliminate options with frustrating websites before evaluating academic factors. If submissions have declined without clear academic explanations, website problems may contribute.

Editorial Workflow Friction

Modern OJS installations streamline editorial processes. If your team uses workarounds, maintains separate spreadsheets, or complains about system limitations, your platform configuration likely needs updating. Proper setup should support workflows, not obstruct them.

Indexing and Visibility Issues

Poor Search Visibility

Search your journal name in Google. Do your pages appear? Are the results properly formatted with appropriate titles and descriptions? Search for specific article titles—do they appear with your domain or only on aggregator sites? Poor visibility suggests technical problems preventing proper indexing.

Metadata Problems

View your article pages' source code. Are proper meta tags present for citation information, social sharing, and structured data? Missing or incorrect metadata undermines discoverability across search engines and academic databases.

Indexing Application Rejections

If applications to DOAJ, Scopus, or other indexes have been rejected citing website issues—accessibility, metadata, or technical standards—those rejections point to concrete problems requiring attention.

Competitive Disadvantage

Visit competitor journals in your field. How does your site compare? If peer journals present modern, professional websites while yours appears dated, you're at competitive disadvantage for author attention. Authors choosing between similar journals often select the one that appears more established and professional.

When Patching Isn't Enough

Some problems respond to targeted fixes. Others indicate deeper issues where comprehensive redesign makes more sense than endless patching:

Structural Problems: If your site's fundamental structure—information architecture, navigation model, template system—doesn't serve current needs, patches address symptoms while causes persist.

Platform Limitations: Sometimes the underlying platform can't deliver what modern journals need. Major version upgrades or platform changes may be necessary.

Accumulated Technical Debt: Years of quick fixes, workarounds, and compatibility patches create fragile systems. At some point, rebuilding on clean foundations becomes more efficient than maintaining legacy complexity.

The Cost of Waiting

Website problems don't resolve themselves—they compound. Outdated systems become harder to update. Technical debt accumulates. Authors develop negative impressions. Indexing opportunities pass. Each month of delay increases eventual remediation costs while continuing to damage the journal's position.

Conversely, website improvements yield immediate benefits: better author experience, improved submissions, stronger professional appearance, and foundation for pursuing indexing opportunities.