The SDG Publishers Compact Fellows: A Conversation with Debra Rowe and Jo Wixon on Sustainability, Action, and the Indirect Lobby of Science Editors for Change-Making

Eleonora Colangelo; Janaynne Carvalho do Amaral; Jonathan Schultz

doi:10.36591/SE-4804-05

Debra Rowe is President of the U.S. Partnership for Education for Sustainable Development. She works with the Higher Education Sustainability Initiative, a collaboration of 10 UN agencies, chairing groups on Education for Green Jobs and Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) Publishers Compact Fellows. Rowe taught renewable energies and sustainable development at Oakland Community College and University of Vermont. She facilitates higher education networks and has played a key role in shaping sustainability education and policy.

Dr Jo Wixon is a seasoned scientist-publisher and strategist with 25 years of experience in scholarly publishing. Having developed many journals, portfolios, and society partnerships, and provided strategic insights and planning to editors, societies, and Wiley’s portfolio, she is currently Director of External Analysis for Wiley’s journals. As a Higher Education Sustainability Initiative (HESI) SDG Publishers Compact Fellow, Wixon champions increasing the impact of research beyond academia and sustainability in journal publishing, working with Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers (ALPSP), European Association of Science Editors (EASE), and STM. She is also an ALPSP Director and EASE Council member, supporting strategic planning and implementation.

Eleonora Colangelo (EC): What first inspired your interest in sustainability in scholarly publishing, and how did that lead you to join the SDG Publishers Compact Fellows?

Debra Rowe (DR): This initiative began when I participated in meetings with the International Publishers Association (IPA), its president at the time, and the Head of Publications at the UN Publications Office—the two entities that launched the SDG Publishers Compact. We discussed how Compact’s 10 principles, while a strong starting point for signatories, needed additional resources and practical guidance to facilitate their implementation. Providing this support would not only make it easier for publishers to uphold their commitments if they are a signatory but also helps all publishers, whether they signed the Compact or not, to know these ideas are useful for them and address critical gaps we identified in the academic publishing industry. These gaps included the lack of connection between publishing and key audiences such as the public, practitioners, and policymakers. We recognized the immense potential for scholarly publishing to contribute more effectively to global sustainability efforts if these issues were addressed. At the time, I was working with HESI, a coalition of UN agencies collaborating with higher education networks to advance sustainability. This initiative has grown significantly, bringing together key nonprofits and stakeholders capable of driving systemic change. As part of these efforts, we were forming action groups, and after decades of working in this space, I saw the potential for the SDG Publishers Compact Fellows program.¹ I gave a presentation—though I can’t recall exactly where, perhaps at the High-Level Political Forum at the UN—and simply said, “If you’re interested in becoming a Fellow, reach out.” The response from the academic publishing community and researchers was immediate, and since then, we have built a strong and active network. We meet every week, and most importantly, we get things done.

Jo Wixon (JW): I’ve always been interested in nature and care about how people treat each other—whether saving frogs as a child or representing students at university. That led me into research, but I soon realized I’m more of a big-picture generalist, drawn to connecting ideas and solving problems. When I discovered the SDGs, it felt like everything clicked—the goals captured what I’d been thinking about while introducing new areas I cared about. At Wiley, I began discussing the SDGs with colleagues, built a cross-departmental team, and launched our SDGs website.

When Wiley was asked to nominate a Fellow, I was honored to be suggested. From my very first call, I saw that the Fellows are a community of doers—publishers, librarians, researchers, practitioners—pushing forward together with respect and driving action. That spirit is what makes being part of the Fellows so meaningful.

EC: Absolutely—it’s a fantastic call to action. From your perspective, what have been the most defining achievements of the Compact Fellows so far?

DR: That’s a tough one, because new highlights happen every week. The Top Action Tips and the rubric stand out—hearing from those who use them is incredibly rewarding. What excites me most, though, is building multi-stakeholder coalitions. When we bring together universities, local governments, charities, and publishers, you see real momentum. Events where directors suddenly realize, “We can be part of this,” and then take action—those are defining moments.

JW: I agree—it’s about awareness and action. We’ve been invited to share resources at major events like the London Book Fair,² R2R,³ ALPSP,⁴ and EASE.⁵ Meeting publishers or young staff who then go back and push their organizations to act—even leading to new Compact signatories—has been especially meaningful. Reaching more publishers in more places is incredibly powerful.

DR: I’ll add two more: being in the room with policymakers when their agendas shift because of these discussions—that’s fantastic. And, of course, opportunities like this interview, which bring fresh energy to the work.

Jonathan Schultz (JS): Could you introduce the Top Action Tips and explain their significance, especially for scientific editing?

JW: The Tips⁶ guide a range of stakeholders—authors, editors, and publishers—so their roles stay consistent and interconnected. For example, authors are encouraged to share the real-world impact of their research and provide plain language summaries, editors to ensure these are requested and included, and publishers to adopt policies to support wider dissemination. We also created an SDG rubric⁷ to help editors and educators review content against SDG targets and identify gaps. It’s all about alignment, collaboration, and making research more relevant to global challenges.

DR: The key is practicality. The Tips highlight simple, actionable steps that can drive systemic change. Accessibility is a major issue—too often practitioners and policymakers either lack access to articles or can’t tell if they’re relevant. Adding implications to abstracts or plain language summaries can fix this, and artificial intelligence (AI) can even help academics draft them. The Tips aim to close this disconnect between researchers and practitioners, which many editors admit still exists.

JW: That’s also why the multi-stakeholder nature of the Fellows is so valuable—we hear real-world needs directly. For instance, we heard from ICLEI⁸ that city mayors want research to inform sustainable planning, but they don’t have time to search journal websites. The challenge is getting knowledge into their hands in usable form.

DR: Exactly—and mayors worldwide face the same issue, especially in communities most affected by climate change and health challenges. Their valuable work often ends up as gray literature, overlooked in academia. In the health sector, we’re starting to see progress, with more input from patients and practitioners and better efforts to share findings with the public and policymakers. It’s a promising trend we need to build on.

Janaynne Carvalho do Amaral (JCdA): Since the Top Action Tips emphasize collaboration with practitioners, I’d like to ask: Why is this approach so relevant today, and what role can science editors play in facilitating it?

DR: We face urgent global challenges, and cocreating research with practitioners and policymakers makes it more relevant and useful. Editors can encourage submissions grounded in real-world needs, introduce themed issues, highlight best practices, and recognize articles that embody this approach. Including practitioners as reviewers ensures research does not remain siloed within academia.

JW: Exactly—and it goes further. Practitioners can also serve on editorial boards, coauthor, or coreview articles. In fields like pharmacology or finance, these academic–industry links are already strong, and journals benefit from that. The key is making sure practitioners are involved at every stage, their expertise respected, and their contributions acknowledged.

On diversity, the Fellows include everyone from students to senior professionals. One student member, for instance, played a central role in publishing analyses on the Compact’s impact—showing how valuable early-career voices are alongside decades of publishing experience.

DR: This connects to another issue: promotion criteria. Current systems often reward basic over applied research, discouraging the very work needed to address the SDGs. Young researchers especially want to solve urgent societal problems, yet their efforts are undervalued in tenure and promotion. We need to change how impact is defined and which journals “count” so applied, solution-driven work is properly recognized.

JW: That’s why the Fellows launched a joint task force with HESI’s Rankings and Ratings and Assessments action group to bring together ranking providers including Times Higher Education. The report⁹ stresses that applied and SDG-focused research must be given equal weight in research and tenure evaluation.

DR: Encouragingly, Times Higher Education now has more universities participating in societal impact rankings than traditional ones. Accreditation and quality assurance agencies are also starting to integrate sustainability criteria. At a recent Fellows-led event, with participants from 60+ countries, we highlighted global examples from business and engineering schools. It’s part of a clear, growing trend toward valuing societal impact in research and education.

EC: The Compact’s mission is not only about what we publish but also how we operate—promoting Open Access (OA) and equity in peer review, and reducing publishing’s carbon footprint. From your perspective, how well is the industry integrating the SDGs, and where are the biggest gaps?

JW: Publishers can act here in two ways: as organizations and as content providers. On the organizational side, we’ve seen strong progress on environmental issues—carbon footprint, paper-to-digital transitions—and on diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives across staff and supply chains. On the content side, publishers contribute to education and equal opportunities, and journals often align naturally with certain SDGs. But alignment isn’t enough—we need to go further. Some goals, like no poverty and gender equality, are underrepresented. We can’t dictate research topics, but we can commission, encourage, and highlight work in these areas.

Another gap is translating research into actionable insights for policymakers and practitioners, not just academics. Publishers must think about secondary audiences and how to reach them. Access to content also remains a challenge: Gold OA has widened reach for reading, but inadvertently created inequities for authors who can’t afford article processing charges. Alternatives—like institutional support for Diamond OA—are being tested, but it’s still a work in progress, and we’ve learned that there’s no one size that fits all.

DR: Jo covered it well. Health is heavily published, but it connects to many other SDGs, and editors are uniquely placed to influence how research engages with the SDGs. Two major gaps stand out: first, researchers rarely cocreate with practitioners and policymakers, so their work may lack real-world impact. Editors can change this by encouraging engagement and by requiring abstracts to spell out implications for nonacademic audiences. Adding plain-language summaries and asking authors to share findings with practitioner associations are small steps with big effects.

Second, accessibility. From my own experience working in energy and education, accessing research outside a major university is incredibly difficult—fees and barriers discourage use, even when the work could inform real-world solutions. Editors can help fix this by pushing for accessibility, supporting waivers, and lowering barriers. That’s why one of the Top Action Tips emphasizes equity and access¹⁰: knowledge only matters if it can be shared and used.

JCdA: Looking ahead, the SDGs run until 2030. Do you see this as a challenge for publishers? And what future do you envision for the Compact beyond that milestone?

JW: The SDGs followed the Millennium Goals, and I expect the UN will extend or refine them beyond 2030. These challenges—poverty, hunger, inequality—aren’t solved yet, and publishers must keep working to support solutions. The SDGs provide a strong framework, but even if they didn’t exist, the issues would still demand attention. So I don’t see 2030 as an end point. Publishers should continue joining the Compact and taking action.

DR: Exactly. The SDGs have reached such depth that the bigger risk now for publishers is being left behind. This movement will not vanish—it will evolve, and publishers will adapt, as they always do when frameworks change. Collaboration across silos and sectors is now firmly established, and that will only deepen.

JW: And the next generations will push this further. Young people are deeply aware of these challenges and won’t let the drive to solve them fade. They’ve grown up with sustainability as part of their education and expect action from us. They’ll become the driving force as we eventually step back.

DR: That’s right. I run a youth sector initiative through the U.S. Partnership for Education for Sustainable Development, and young people consistently tell us: “Adults aren’t acting like adults.” They want less doom and gloom and more solutions. In fact, youth in our network created free modules to help faculty teach systems thinking, positive scenarios, and coalition-building—skills to become real change-makers. We need to support this shift, and the Compact Fellows offer resources to help. It’s not just about naming the problems; it’s about equipping the next generation to solve them.

JS: Looking ahead to 2050, how do you envision scholarly publishing evolving around sustainability and responsible research? And what do you hope will be considered an outdated relic by then?

JW: Many publishers have set net-zero targets for 2050, and I sincerely hope those are achieved. At the same time, AI could be transformative—if used responsibly. Ideally, it will enhance equity and discovery, broaden access to diverse sources, and enable real-time translation so authors can publish in their own language while others read it in theirs. But we must also balance the energy demands of advanced AI with sustainability goals.

By 2050, I hope open, accessible publishing is the norm—for everyone, including people with disabilities. That would be a huge step toward equity. Just as important is strengthened trust: ensuring peer-reviewed, evidence-based content is widely accessible, countering misinformation, and communicating science as “current best knowledge.” Science evolves; changing our understanding doesn’t mean it’s broken—it means we’re learning. Explaining that clearly, especially around areas of uncertainty and risk, will build public trust.

Finally, research integrity will remain critical. AI can help with detection, but publishers must also work alongside institutions and funders to address incentives and prevent misconduct like paper mills. If, by 2050, publishing has become more accessible, transparent, and trusted, that would be a true success.

DR: From my perspective, the most urgent test is climate change. By 2050, we’ll know whether we acted quickly enough to avoid the worst disruptions—or whether we’ve created a costly, unstable future. The solutions exist today. They’re practical, affordable, and already being applied by practitioners, yet they often don’t appear in the research literature as much as they should.

I work with policymakers in the Clean Energy Ministers group, where we run solution summits and create toolkits. What they want most is behavioral science—guidance on how to help people identify good information, filter out misinformation, and take meaningful action. If academia can deliver on that, the impact will be profound.

I’ve seen through decades of “futuring” with cities and communities that people share a strong vision for positive, sustainable futures. The leverage points for systemic change have become clearer. Imagine a world where practitioners, policymakers, publishers, and researchers work in concert, creating and sharing knowledge that truly drives solutions. That future is within reach—but only if we act. And for anyone unsure how to build those coalitions, know that we are here to support you.

EC: Thank you both for these perspectives. At recent SDG Publishers Compact Fellows meetings, I have seen how the initiative connects publishers, researchers, librarians, and practitioners. But to drive systemic change, conversations must widen. Who is still missing from the table? I am especially thinking of policymakers.

JW: Absolutely—policymakers, but also the public. Too often we engage only with our closest stakeholders. A talk we had with a researcher in residence at the Office of the Chief Science Advisor of Canada was eye-opening: He stressed that scientists often present findings at the wrong level of government, or in ways too granular for policymaking needs. Scientists need guidance on who to reach and how to frame evidence; policymakers need to be clearer about what they require.

The public is another missing piece. In nutrition, for instance, people face a flood of misinformation from “experts” promoting fad diets. Each field has its version of this challenge. How can the public know what to trust? How can they recognize peer-reviewed, evidence-based knowledge that should guide daily choices?

DR: This is urgent, given the rise of “fake news” narratives and suspicion that academia is controlled by corporations. If we do not engage, we risk losing the public’s trust entirely. Publishers have a responsibility to help build scientific literacy.

We also heard from Canada’s Office of the Chief Science Advisor that policymakers need research distilled into real-time, actionable formats. They cannot sift through multiple articles when a bill is days away. One idea is moderated community forums where policymakers pose questions and researchers provide evidence-based answers, with citations and crowd-voting surfacing the most useful responses.

Such models are low-cost and could reshape our roles. If contributing to public knowledge is institutionalized—through job descriptions, evaluations, or requirements like plain-language summaries—then systemic change becomes possible.

JS: As we close, what would you say to publishers still hesitant about signing the SDG Publishers Compact?

JW: First, you do not need a fully formed multiyear sustainability plan in place before signing. Signing is a commitment to start moving in that direction—you do not have to do everything on day one. Even IPA’s survey shows Compact signatories are still working through the 10 commitments, and that is normal. Publishers of every size and type—from large publishers to industry associations to single journals—have signed. So, do not let the idea of “perfect” stop you. Just begin.

DR: Exactly. If you are undecided, now is the time to act—for your good and for everyone’s. Concerns may be emotional or financial, but many impactful steps cost nothing. Start small with the Top Action Tips, show progress, and reach out for support.

JW: And remember, your staff likely cares deeply about this work—it motivates current employees and attracts future ones. Signing also makes business sense: it signals Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental, Social, and Governance commitment, strengthens investor confidence, and feeds into sustainability reporting. In short, the Compact is both ethically right and strategically smart.

JCdA: We have talked about goals and solutions—but how can we measure whether a goal has been achieved, and act on that measurement?

DR: Evaluation is essential. We need strong formative measures that create feedback loops for continuous improvement—do not wait until the end to evaluate. Some metrics must also be rethought, like how we define a “high-impact journal.” Policymakers and practitioners must be involved, since many measures require their input.

There are straightforward indicators—how many publishers change abstract requirements, adopt plain-language summaries, or follow Top Action Tips. But above all: do not let imperfect metrics delay action. Too often people spend more time measuring than implementing.

JW: There are two levels: SDG goals themselves, and the goals publishers set. UN indicators, often tracked by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the International Monetary Fund, or the UN, can feel distant from publishers’ realities. But aligning with the broader direction of the SDGs is valuable, even if not tied to exact UN metrics.

Within ALPSP’s SDGs and Publishing special interest group, a subgroup focuses specifically on measurement. We are learning together—sharing progress, challenges, and lessons from other industries. A key step is establishing a baseline. That is why EASE developed an SDG checklist¹¹: publishers or editors answer yes-or-no questions on specific actions, save their results, and revisit later to track progress. This accommodates diversity—from large publishers to single journals—by allowing reporting on relevant actions while still showing overall commitment.

Measuring progress is complex, but practical tools are emerging to make it clearer and more manageable.

References and Links

Eleonora Colangelo (https://orcid.org/0009-0006-5741-1590) is Public Affairs Officer at Frontiers; Janaynne Carvalho do Amaral (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9817-4572) is Postdoctoral Research Associate at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign; and Jonathan Schultz (https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1030-5062) is Sr Director of Journal Operations at the American Heart Association and Editor-in-Chief of Science Editor.