Open Access Megajournals Research Articles

Russian Scholarly Papers in Open-Access Megajournals

The quantity, research topics, and growth rates are assessed for Russian scholarly papers published in open-access megajournals. Russian papers published in PLoS ONE in 2006–2019 are analyzed on the basis of international scientometric indicators. The results are reported of the international coauthorship survey of Russian researchers to define its impact on citation indices. Affiliations are presented for authors with papers in megajournals. Funding of publication charges is discussed for Russian researchers who publish papers in open-access journals.

Two Decades of Research Using Taiwan's National Health Insurance Claims Data: Bibliometric and Text Mining Analysis on PubMed.

BackgroundStudies using Taiwan’s National Health Insurance (NHI) claims data have expanded rapidly both in quantity and quality during the first decade following the first study published in 2000. However, some of these studies were criticized for being merely data-dredging studies rather than hypothesis-driven. In addition, the use of claims data without the explicit authorization from individual patients has incurred litigation.ObjectiveThis study aimed to investigate whether the research output during the second decade after the release of the NHI claims database continues growing, to explore how the emergence of open access mega journals (OAMJs) and lawsuit against the use of this database affect the research topics and publication volume and to discuss the underlying reasons.MethodsPubMed was used to locate publications based on NHI claims data between 1996 and 2017. Concept extraction using MetaMap was employed to mine research topics from article titles. Research trends were analyzed from various aspects, including publication amount, journals, research topics and types, and cooperation between authors.ResultsA total of 4473 articles were identified. A rapid growth in publications was witnessed from 2000 to 2015, followed by a plateau. Diabetes, stroke, and dementia were the top 3 most popular research topics whereas statin therapy, metformin, and Chinese herbal medicine were the most investigated interventions. Approximately one-third of the articles were published in open access journals. Studies with two or more medical conditions, but without any intervention, were the most common study type. Studies of this type tended to be contributed by prolific authors and published in OAMJs.ConclusionsThe growth in publication volume during the second decade after the release of the NHI claims database was different from that during the first decade. OAMJs appeared to provide fertile soil for the rapid growth of research based on NHI claims data, in particular for those studies with two or medical conditions in the article title. A halt in the growth of publication volume was observed after the use of NHI claims data for research purposes had been restricted in response to legal controversy. More efforts are needed to improve the impact of knowledge gained from NHI claims data on medical decisions and policy making.

Correction to: The troubles of high-profile open access megajournals

Correction to: The troubles of high-profile open access megajournals

Quantitative portrait of open access mega-journals

Nowadays, Open Access Mega-Journals (OAMJs) represent a substantial part of the scholarly communication system. The current research is conducted with the aim of providing better insights into the increasingly important OAMJ phenomenon through investigation of eight reputable titles using established bibliometric methods. Results of the study showed that eight studied OAMJs were responsible for 1.87% of the total number of publication indexed in Web of Science during 2012-2016. Despite the decline in publication count of PLOS ONE over the past couple of years, it was the biggest journal in the world till 2017, when Scientific Reports overtook PLOS ONE as the most productive journal. Over 88% of the papers published in eight selected OAMJs were cited at-least once at the point in time of analysis. The highest proportions of cited and un-cited documents were seen in Scientific Reports and SpringerPlus, respectively. With regard to the three indicators, namely share of highly-cited papers, the category normalized citation impact as well as the JIF percentile, IEEE Access had by far the best performance among eight examined OAMJs. Results of the study revealed that Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, Multidisciplinary Sciences, Neurosciences, Oncology and Immunology were the most commonly assigned subject categories to OAMJs’ content. The National Natural Science Foundation of China was the most important funding agency that supported the publication of around 26000 articles in eight studied OAMJs. Investigation of the geographic distribution of authors showed that the United States and China by far had the highest contribution in the content of eight studied OAMJs. There were, however, notable variations between different OAMJs.

Open-access megajournals lose momentum as the publishing model matures

Open-access megajournals lose momentum as the publishing model matures

Is the soundness-only quality control policy of open access mega journals linked to a higher rate of published errors?

Open access mega journals (OAMJs) are broad and centralized open access journals that have come to represent profitable outlets for accumulating large volumes of research from multiple fields of study, including papers that are rejected from other journals by the same publisher. Some OAMJs charge hefty (exceeding US$1000) article processing fees. One characteristic of OAMJs is a large editorial board. In 2015, Bjork indicated that a primary characteristic of an OAMJ was its prepublication soundness only peer review, i.e., novelty, significance, relevance and impact are assessed only post-publication. However, such a premise ignores the inherent nature of peers’ bias. This controversial claim is challenged in this paper by assessing whether there is a link between research output (number of papers published in each OAMJ) and number of errata, including retractions. We assessed 16 OAMJs indexed in Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science and found wide variation in published errata and retractions across OAMJs between 2012 and 2018. PLOS ONE had the highest correction rate (3.159%), followed by Medicine (3.158%), BMJ Open (2.949%) and Scientific Reports (2.896%). In contrast, PeerJ, Elementa, and Science of the Anthropocene did not publish any errata in 2012–2018 but IEEE Access had a correction rate of 0.059%. Regarding the retraction rate, the highest share of retracted publications was seen in Medicine (0.079%), Cell Reports (0.035%) and PLOS ONE (0.030%), while nine out of the 16 studied OAMJs did not have any retracted publications during 2012–2018. We conclude that there is wide variation in “quality control”, as assessed through errata and retractions, among OAMJs. We recommend, therefore, that the “soundness only peer review” prerequisite for OAMJs should be scrapped.

Academic communities: The role of journals and open-access mega-journals in scholarly communication

The purpose of this paper is to provide insights into publication practices from the perspective of academics working within four disciplinary communities: biosciences, astronomy/physics, education and history. The paper explores the ways in which these multiple overlapping communities intersect with the journal landscape and the implications for the adoption and use of new players in the scholarly communication system, particularly open-access mega-journals (OAMJs). OAMJs (e. g. PLOS ONE and Scientific Reports) are large, broad scope, open-access journals that base editorial decisions solely on the technical/scientific soundness of the article. Design/methodology/approach: focus groups with active researchers in these fields were held in five UK Higher Education Institutions across Great Britain, and were complemented by interviews with pro-vicechancellors for research at each institution. Findings: а strong finding to emerge from the data is the notion of researchers belonging to multiple overlapping communities, with some inherent tensions in meeting the requirements for these different audiences. Researcher perceptions of evaluation mechanisms were found to play a major role in attitudes towards OAMJs, and interviews with the pro-vice-chancellors for research indicate that there is a difference between researchers’ perceptions and the values embedded in institutional frameworks. Originality/value: This is the first purely qualitative study relating to researcher perspectives on OAMJs. The findings of the paper will be of interest to publishers, policy-makers, research managers and academics.

The troubles of high-profile open access megajournals

The rise in open access journals was followed by the proliferation of open access megajournals, which were once expected to become a major publication platform of the future. We analyzed the bibliometric parameters of 11 megajournals sensu stricto according to the definition by Bjork and compared them with three control groups of gold open-access journals that do not satisfy the criteria for megajournals and that do not apply the concept of “sound science”, namely the journals published under the PLoS, BMC and Hindawi brands. We show that nonselective megajournals have started to decline in all bibliometric parameters. These journals in particular have lost connection with the most advanced science as revealed by the decreasing citations to and from the top-tier journals. While some megajournals have underperformed on bibliometric parameters from the beginning of their existence, others experienced a short honeymoon period before declining. In contrast, major discipline-specific open-access journals remain competitive, and those published by less prominent publishers have even increased their performance. However, the discipline-specific open-access journals also display decreasing citations to and from the top-tier journals. Concluded, we provided the first evidence that the change in the perception of megajournals is associated with the deterioration of their bibliometric characteristics. The future of megajournals as a major publishing platform is now threatened.

Open Access Mega-Journals: Quality, Economics and Post-publication Peer Review Infrastructure

As the publishing industry evolves towards the predominant open access (OA) model, publishers are establishing OA journal power-houses, the OA mega-journals (OAMJs), which are wide in scope, with larger-than-usual editor boards, and that pump out large numbers of papers. OAMJs are thus able to accommodate a surge in submissions, or transfers from other journals within the same publisher’s fleet. OAMJs represent a simple but effective publishing model that can also be an effective business model. We question whether the peer review system is robust enough to accommodate for effective post-publication peer review in OAMJs. As examples, we examine Scientific Reports, PLOS One, Heliyon, F1000Research, PeerJ, and BMJ Open, as well as a possible developing OAMJ, eLife, for clues to the dynamics of OAMJs and the possible links to quality control via peer review or post-publication peer review. We also take a closer look at the economics of OA publishing that might be driving the expansion of the OAMJ market.

Academic communities: The role of journals and open-access mega-journals in scholarly communication

Academic communities: The role of journals and open-access mega-journals in scholarly communication

‘No comment’? A study of commenting on PLOS articles

Article–commenting functionality allows users to add publicly visible comments to an article on a publisher’s website. As well as facilitating forms of post-publication peer review, for publishers of open-access mega-journals (large, broad scope, open-access journals that seek to publish all technically or scientifically sound research) comments are also thought to serve as a means for the community to discuss and communicate the significance and novelty of the research, factors which are not assessed during peer review. In this article we present the results of an analysis of commenting on articles published by the Public Library of Science (PLOS), publisher of the first and best-known mega-journal PLOS ONE, between 2003 and 2016. We find that while overall commenting rates are low, and have declined since 2010, there is substantial variation across different PLOS titles. Using a typology of comments developed for this research, we also find that only around half of comments engage in an academic discussion of the article and that these discussions are most likely to focus on the paper’s technical soundness. Our results suggest that publishers are yet to encourage significant numbers of readers to leave comments, with implications for the effectiveness of commenting as a means of collecting and communicating community perceptions of an article’s importance.

Motivations, understandings, and experiences of open-access mega-journal authors: Results of a large-scale survey.

Open‐access mega‐journals (OAMJs) are characterized by their large scale, wide scope, open‐access (OA) business model, and “soundness‐only” peer review. The last of these controversially discounts the novelty, significance, and relevance of submitted articles and assesses only their “soundness.” This article reports the results of an international survey of authors (n = 11,883), comparing the responses of OAMJ authors with those of other OA and subscription journals, and drawing comparisons between different OAMJs. Strikingly, OAMJ authors showed a low understanding of soundness‐only peer review: two‐thirds believed OAMJs took into account novelty, significance, and relevance, although there were marked geographical variations. Author satisfaction with OAMJs, however, was high, with more than 80% of OAMJ authors saying they would publish again in the same journal, although there were variations by title, and levels were slightly lower than subscription journals (over 90%). Their reasons for choosing to publish in OAMJs included a wide variety of factors, not significantly different from reasons given by authors of other journals, with the most important including the quality of the journal and quality of peer review. About half of OAMJ articles had been submitted elsewhere before submission to the OAMJ with some evidence of a “cascade” of articles between journals from the same publisher.

Bring the facts, bust the myths

Question everything and seek answers

Publishing speed and acceptance rates of open access megajournals

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to look at two particular aspects of open access megajournals, a new type of scholarly journals. Such journals only review for scientific soundness and leave the judgment of scientific impact to the readers. The two leading journals currently each publish more than 20,000 articles per year. The publishing speed of such journals and acceptance rates of such journals are the topics of the study.Design/methodology/approachSubmission, acceptance and publication dates for a sample of articles in 12 megajournals were manually extracted from the articles. Information about acceptance rates was obtained using web searches of journal home pages, editorials, blogs, etc.FindingsThe time from submission to publication varies a lot, with engineering megajournals publishing much more rapidly. But on average it takes almost half a year to get published, particularly in the high-volume biomedical journals. As some of the journals have grown in publication volume, the average review time has increased by almost two months. Acceptance rates have slightly decreased over the past five years, and are now in the range of 50–55 percent.Originality/valueThis is the first empirical study of how long it takes to get published in megajournals and it highlights a clear increase of around two months in publishing. Currently, the review process in the biomedical megajournals takes as long as in regular more selective journals in the same fields. Possible explanations could be increasing difficulties in finding willing and motivated reviewers and in a higher share of submissions from developing countries.

Academic communities

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to provide insights into publication practices from the perspective of academics working within four disciplinary communities: biosciences, astronomy/physics, education and history. The paper explores the ways in which these multiple overlapping communities intersect with the journal landscape and the implications for the adoption and use of new players in the scholarly communication system, particularly open-access mega-journals (OAMJs). OAMJs (e.g. PLOS ONE and Scientific Reports) are large, broad scope, open-access journals that base editorial decisions solely on the technical/scientific soundness of the article.Design/methodology/approachFocus groups with active researchers in these fields were held in five UK Higher Education Institutions across Great Britain, and were complemented by interviews with pro-vice-chancellors for research at each institution.FindingsA strong finding to emerge from the data is the notion of researchers belonging to multiple overlapping communities, with some inherent tensions in meeting the requirements for these different audiences. Researcher perceptions of evaluation mechanisms were found to play a major role in attitudes towards OAMJs, and interviews with the pro-vice-chancellors for research indicate that there is a difference between researchers’ perceptions and the values embedded in institutional frameworks.Originality/valueThis is the first purely qualitative study relating to researcher perspectives on OAMJs. The findings of the paper will be of interest to publishers, policy-makers, research managers and academics.

A Very Long Embargo: Journal Choice Reveals Active Non-Compliance with Funder Open Access Policies by Australian and Canadian Neuroscientists

Research funders around the world have implemented open access policies that require funded research to be made open access, usually by self-archiving, within 12 months of publication. Elsevier is unique among major science publishers because it produces several journals with non-compliant self-archiving embargoes of more than 12 months. We used Elsevier’s Scopus database to study the rate at which Australian and Canadian neuroscientists publish in Elsevier’s non-compliant (embargoes > 12 months) and compliant journals (embargoes ≤ 12 months). We also examined publications in immediate open access neuroscience journals that had the DOAJ Seal and neuroscience publications in open access mega-journals. We found that the implementation of Australian and Canadian funder open access policies in 2012/2013 and 2015 did not reduce the number of publications in non-compliant journals. Instead, scientific output in all publication types increased with the greatest growth in immediate open access journals. This data suggests that funder open access policies that are similar to the Australian and Canadian policies are likely to have little effect beyond an association with a general cultural trend towards open access.

“Let the community decide”? The vision and reality of soundness-only peer review in open-access mega-journals

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to better understand the theory and practice of peer review in open-access mega-journals (OAMJs). OAMJs typically operate a “soundness-only” review policy aiming to evaluate only the rigour of an article, not the novelty or significance of the research or its relevance to a particular community, with these elements being left for “the community to decide” post-publication.Design/methodology/approachThe paper reports the results of interviews with 31 senior publishers and editors representing 16 different organisations, including 10 that publish an OAMJ. Thematic analysis was carried out on the data and an analytical model developed to explicate their significance.FindingsFindings suggest that in reality criteria beyond technical or scientific soundness can and do influence editorial decisions. Deviations from the original OAMJ model are both publisher supported (in the form of requirements for an article to be “worthy” of publication) and practice driven (in the form of some reviewers and editors applying traditional peer review criteria to OAMJ submissions). Also publishers believe post-publication evaluation of novelty, significance and relevance remains problematic.Originality/valueThe study is based on unprecedented access to senior publishers and editors, allowing insight into their strategic and operational priorities. The paper is the first to report in-depth qualitative data relating specifically to soundness-only peer review for OAMJs, shedding new light on the OAMJ phenomenon and helping inform discussion on its future role in scholarly communication. The paper proposes a new model for understanding the OAMJ approach to quality assurance, and how it is different from traditional peer review.

POLARIZATION IN THE FUTURE JOURNAL PUBLISHING ECOSYSTEM: SELECTIVE SUBSCRIPTION JOURNALS AND OPEN ACCESS MEGA-JOURNALS

POLARIZATION IN THE FUTURE JOURNAL PUBLISHING ECOSYSTEM: SELECTIVE SUBSCRIPTION JOURNALS AND OPEN ACCESS MEGA-JOURNALS

Open access megajournals: The publisher perspective (Part 1: Motivations)

This paper is the first of two Learned Publishing articles in which we report the results of a series of interviews with senior publishers and editors exploring open access megajournals (OAMJs). Megajournals (of which PLoS One is the best known example) represent a relatively new approach to scholarly communication and can be characterized as large, broad‐scope, open access journals that take an innovative approach to peer review, basing acceptance decisions solely on the technical or scientific soundness of the article. This model is often said to support the broader goals of the open science movement. Based on in‐depth interviews with 31 publishers and editors representing 16 different organizations (10 of which publish a megajournal), this paper reports how the term ‘megajournal’ is understood and publishers’ rationale and motivations for launching (or not launching) an OAMJ. We find that while there is general agreement on the common characteristics of megajournals, there is not yet a consensus on their relative importance. We also find seven motivating factors that were said to drive the launch of an OAMJ and link each of these factors to potential societal and business benefits. These results suggest that the often polarized debate surrounding OAMJs is a consequence of the extent to which observers perceive publishers to be motivated by these societal or business benefits.

Open access megajournals: The publisher perspective (Part 2: Operational realities)

This paper is the second of two Learned Publishing articles in which we report the results of a series of interviews, with senior publishers and editors exploring open access megajournals (OAMJs). Megajournals (of which PLoS One is the best known example) represent a relatively new approach to scholarly communication and can be characterized as large, broad‐scope, open access journals, which take an innovative approach to peer review, basing acceptance decisions solely on the technical or scientific soundness of the article. Based on interviews with 31 publishers and editors, this paper reports the perceived cultural, operational, and technical challenges associated with launching, growing, and maintaining a megajournal. We find that overcoming these challenges while delivering the societal benefits associated with OAMJs is seen to require significant investment in people and systems, as well as an ongoing commitment to the model.