Abstract
AbstractOver the past decade, megajournals have expanded in popularity and established a legitimate niche in academic publishing. Leveraging advantages of digital publishing, megajournals are characterized by large publication volume, broad interdisciplinary scope, and peer‐review filters that select primarily for scientific soundness as opposed to novelty or originality. These publishing innovations are complementary and competitive vis‐à‐vis traditional journals. We analyze how megajournals (PLOS One, Scientific Reports) are represented in different fields relative to prominent generalist journals (Nature, PNAS, Science) and “quasi‐megajournals” (Nature Communications, PeerJ). Our results show that both megajournals and prominent traditional journals have distinctive niches, despite the similar interdisciplinary scopes of such journals. These niches—defined by publishing volume and disciplinary diversity—are dynamic and varied over the relatively brief histories of the analyzed megajournals. Although the life sciences are the predominant contributor to megajournals, there is variation in the disciplinary composition of different megajournals. The growth trajectories and disciplinary composition of generalist journals—including megajournals—reflect changing knowledge dissemination and reward structures in science.
Highlights
The digitization of knowledge in the Internet age has led to several changes in academic publishing
Megajournals are generally defined by the following characteristics: large publishing volume, evaluation criteria based mostly on scientific soundness, coverage of multiple subject areas, and full open access funded via Article Processing Charges (APCs) (Domnina, 2016; Wakeling et al, 2019)
Soundnessbased peer review is favorable to academic work that would be disadvantaged in “traditional” peer review, where contributions are evaluated according to criteria beyond scientific soundness
Summary
The digitization of knowledge in the Internet age has led to several changes in academic publishing. Journal rejection rates can be set strategically, as opposed to being circumscribed by printed page limitations This technological change has generated new niches in scientific publishing. Since most academic reward structures value publication in high-rejection traditional journals, this may limit the growth potential of megajournals without large-scale cultural change in scientific norms of meritocracy (Wakeling et al, 2017). By garnering legitimacy and establishing credence in the hiring/promotion/tenure reward structures of science, megajournals have added to the available intellectual and professional opportunities for academics Rejection rates influence both gatekeeping and gestational processes in peer review by influencing evaluative cultures and incentives. Ellison argued that decreasing acceptance rates and intensifying competitive pressures in peer review result in a disproportionate emphasis on r-qualities in the peer-review process This evaluative strategy favors more conventional contributions and is prone to homogenizing academic work. Given the unique scholarly philosophies and innovations of megajournals—and related OA journals— this raises the question of how such publication outlets have developed and diffused in contemporary academic publishing
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
