Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
L. Busby (2015)
A Matter of SizeThe Serials Librarian, 69
Sean Burns (2015)
Characteristics of a Megajournal: A Bibliometric Case StudyJournal of Information Science Theory and Practice, 3
D. Butler (2006)
Alice DautryNature Medicine, 12
(2016)
A few words on sound science, megajournals, and an announcement about SpringerPlus
(2013)
Ithaka S+R|JISC|RLUK UK Survey of Academics 2012
Kendall Powell (2016)
Does it take too long to publish research?Nature, 530
B. Björk, Turid Hedlund (2015)
Emerging new methods of peer review in scholarly journalsLearned Publishing, 28
M. Jubb (2016)
Peer review: The current landscape and future trendsLearned Publishing, 29
J. Buriak (2015)
Mega-Journals and Peer Review: Can Quality and Standards Survive?Chemistry of Materials, 27
(2015)
Re: Elsevier: trying to squeeze the virtual genie back into the physical bottle
Zohreh Zahedi, R. Costas, P. Wouters (2014)
How well developed are altmetrics? A cross-disciplinary analysis of the presence of ‘alternative metrics’ in scientific publicationsScientometrics, 101
Impactstory Team (2014)
The 3 dangers of publishing in “megajournals”–and how you can avoid themImpactstory blog
(2013)
Why I published in PLoS ONE. And why I probably won’t again for awhile
(2016)
Megajournals and the impact factor
S. Wakeling, P. Willett, Claire Creaser, J. Fry, S. Pinfield, Valérie Spezi (2016)
Open-Access Mega-Journals: A Bibliometric ProfilePLoS ONE, 11
B. Björk, D. Solomon (2015)
Article processing charges in OA journals: relationship between price and qualityScientometrics, 103
(2012)
Megajournals”, Trading Knowledge Blog, 9 July, available
M. Thelwall, S. Haustein, V. Larivière, Cassidy Sugimoto (2013)
Do Altmetrics Work? Twitter and Ten Other Social Web ServicesPLoS ONE, 8
S. Pinfield, Jennifer Salter, P. Bath (2017)
A “Gold‐centric” implementation of open access: Hybrid journals, the “Total cost of publication,” and policy development in the UK and beyondJournal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68
P. Binfield (2013)
Open access megajournals : have they changed everything?
Margo Leach, S. Hobbs (2013)
Plantwise knowledge bank: delivering plant health information to developing country usersLearned Publishing, 26
B. Brembs, M. Munafo (2013)
Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rankFrontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7
D. Pendlebury (2009)
The use and misuse of journal metrics and other citation indicatorsArchivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis, 57
Zhi-qiang Zhang (2006)
The making of a mega-journal in taxonomyZootaxa, 1385
Jingfeng Xia (2014)
An examination of two Indian megajournalsLearned Publishing, 27
D. Butler (2008)
PLoS stays afloat with bulk publishingNature, 454
Richard Wellen (2013)
Open Access, Megajournals, and MOOCsSAGE Open, 3
(2012)
The widely held notion that high-impact publications determine who gets academic jobs, grants and tenure is wrong. Stop using it as an excuse”, it is NOT junk, 4 February
S. Pinfield (2015)
Making Open Access work: The "state-of-the-art" in providing Open Access to scholarly literatureOnline Inf. Rev., 39
Yassine Gargouri, V. Larivière, Y. Gingras, L. Carr, S. Harnad (2012)
Green and Gold Open Access Percentages and Growth, by DisciplineArXiv, abs/1206.3664
(2015)
New open access journal will publish across all disciplines
Richard Noorden (2013)
Open access: The true cost of science publishingNature, 495
C. MacCallum (2011)
Why ONE Is More Than 5PLoS Biology, 9
Emily Ford (2013)
Defining and Characterizing Open Peer Review: A Review of the LiteratureJournal of Scholarly Publishing, 44
(2015)
The STM Report, International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers, The Hague, available
Mark Ware (2011)
Peer Review: Recent Experience and Future DirectionsNew Review of Information Networking, 16
(2013)
The rise and fall of PLOS ONE’s impact factor
B. Björk (2015)
Have the “mega-journals” reached the limits to growth?PeerJ, 3
Björk Bo-Christer, S. David (2017)
Developing an Effective Market for Open Access Article Processing Charges
SAGE Open, 3
Pardeep Sud, M. Thelwall (2014)
Evaluating altmetricsScientometrics, 98
B. Björk, P. Catani (2016)
Peer review in megajournals compared with traditional scholarly journals: Does it make a difference?Learned Publishing, 29
C. Fein (2013)
Multidimensional Journal Evaluation of PLOS ONE, 63
(2013)
Game of papers: eLife, BMC, PLoS and EMBO announce new peer review consortium
David Solomon (2014)
A survey of authors publishing in four megajournalsPeerJ, 2
(2010)
PLoS’ squandered opportunity – their problems with the path of least resistance
B. Cronin (2012)
The resilience of rejected manuscriptsJ. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol., 63
(2014)
Comparing the results from two surveys of BMJ Open authors
James Wiser (2014)
The Future of Serials: A Publisher's PerspectiveSerials Review, 40
(2014)
PLOS ONE output falls following impact factor decline”, The Scholarly Kitchen, 7 March, available
S. Pinfield (2015)
Making Open Access work: Clustering analysis of academic discourse suggests OA is still grappling with controversy.
S. Pinfield, Jennifer Salter, P. Bath (2016)
The “total cost of publication” in a hybrid open‐access environment: Institutional approaches to funding journal article‐processing charges in combination with subscriptionsJournal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67
S. Saha, S. Saint, D. Christakis (2003)
Impact factor: a valid measure of journal quality?Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 91 1
(2010)
Submission fees – a tool in the transition to open access ?
(2014)
Can mega-journals maintain boundaries when they and their customers align on ‘publish or perish’?
Cassidy Sugimoto, V. Larivière, Chaoqun Ni, B. Cronin (2013)
Journal acceptance rates: A cross-disciplinary analysis of variability and relationships with journal measuresJ. Informetrics, 7
(2012)
PLoS ONE – a personal farewell
M. Eve (2015)
Clarifying a few facts for Elsevier and their response to Lingua
D. Solomon, B. Björk (2012)
A study of open access journals using article processing chargesJ. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol., 63
PurposeOpen-access mega-journals (OAMJs) represent an increasingly important part of the scholarly communication landscape. OAMJs, such as PLOS ONE, are large scale, broad scope journals that operate an open access business model (normally based on article-processing charges), and which employ a novel form of peer review, focussing on scientific “soundness” and eschewing judgement of novelty or importance. The purpose of this paper is to examine the discourses relating to OAMJs, and their place within scholarly publishing, and considers attitudes towards mega-journals within the academic community.Design/methodology/approachThis paper presents a review of the literature of OAMJs structured around four defining characteristics: scale, disciplinary scope, peer review policy, and economic model. The existing scholarly literature was augmented by searches of more informal outputs, such as blogs and e-mail discussion lists, to capture the debate in its entirety.FindingsWhile the academic literature relating specifically to OAMJs is relatively sparse, discussion in other fora is detailed and animated, with debates ranging from the sustainability and ethics of the mega-journal model, to the impact of soundness-only peer review on article quality and discoverability, and the potential for OAMJs to represent a paradigm-shifting development in scholarly publishing.Originality/valueThis paper represents the first comprehensive review of the mega-journal phenomenon, drawing not only on the published academic literature, but also grey, professional and informal sources. The paper advances a number of ways in which the role of OAMJs in the scholarly communication environment can be conceptualised.
Journal of Documentation – Emerald Publishing
Published: Mar 13, 2017
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.