Academic research in fields like existential risk, AI safety, and global priorities research often struggles with visibility and credibility. These areas are frequently interdisciplinary or speculative, making it hard to publish in traditional high-prestige journals. As a result, important work may go unnoticed, limiting its impact. Creating a new traditional journal is impractical due to the difficulty of building prestige and the administrative burden. Instead, one way to address this gap could be through an overlay journal—a curated online publication that highlights high-quality open-access research already available in repositories like arXiv.

How an Overlay Journal Could Work

Unlike traditional journals, an overlay journal wouldn’t produce original content or manage peer review. Instead, it would select and showcase existing open-access papers, adding value through features like:

Editorial curation: Papers would be chosen based on quality and relevance by a reputable editorial board.
Commentary and context: Editors and authors could provide insights, making the research more engaging.
Thematic organization: Grouping papers by topic could help readers discover interdisciplinary connections.

This approach avoids paywalls and doesn’t compete with traditional journals, instead amplifying their open-access output. Researchers in underrepresented fields could gain visibility, while readers would get a vetted, accessible collection of work.

Potential Benefits and Stakeholder Incentives

Key beneficiaries might include:

Researchers: Junior scholars or those outside traditional academia could see their work gain traction.
Funders: Organizations supporting this research might benefit from increased impact.
Editors: Involvement could offer prestige with less time commitment than traditional journal management.

For execution, a simple MVP could start with a manually curated list of standout papers and editor comments, hosted on a lightweight platform. Scaling up could involve formalizing an editorial board and adding features like author interviews.

Comparison with Existing Models

Unlike Distill.pub, which simplifies technical research, this idea would preserve original papers while adding commentary. Unlike PLOS Collections, it wouldn’t be limited to one publisher’s content. And unlike arXiv overlay journals that conduct peer review, this model would focus purely on curation, reducing overhead.

By leveraging open-access research and adding thoughtful curation, this approach could fill a visibility gap without reinventing academic publishing.