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

BackgroundAssociation-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.ObjectiveThis 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.MethodsA 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).ResultsThe 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.ConclusionThe 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 andreadiness for indexing.