Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
S. Wakeling, Valérie Spezi, J. Fry, Claire Creaser, S. Pinfield, P. Willett (2017)
Open access megajournals: The publisher perspective (Part 1: Motivations)Learned Publishing, 30
Valérie Spezi, S. Wakeling, S. Pinfield, J. Fry, Claire Creaser, P. Willett (2018)
"Let the community decide"? The vision and reality of soundness-only peer review in open-access mega-journalsJ. Documentation, 74
S. Inchcoombe, H. Weinheimer (2016)
A few words on sound science, megajournals, and an announcement about SpringerPlus
Marijke Breuning, Jeremy Backstrom, J. Brannon, B. Gross, Michael Widmeier (2015)
Reviewer Fatigue? Why Scholars Decline to Review their Peers’ WorkPS: Political Science & Politics, 48
S. Wakeling, Valérie Spezi, Claire Creaser, J. Fry, S. Pinfield, P. Willett (2017)
Open access megajournals: The publisher perspective (Part 2: Operational realities)Learned Publishing, 30
(2005)
The facts about open access
(2012)
Global publishing: changes in submission trends and the impact on scholarly publishers
B. Björk (2015)
Have the “mega-journals” reached the limits to growth?PeerJ, 3
B. Björk, P. Catani (2016)
Peer review in megajournals compared with traditional scholarly journals: Does it make a difference?Learned Publishing, 29
M. Ware, M. Mabe (2015)
The STM report: an overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing
Arianne Albert, J. Gow, Alison Cobra, T. Vines (2016)
Is it becoming harder to secure reviewers for peer review? A test with data from five ecology journalsResearch Integrity and Peer Review, 1
S. Wakeling, P. Willett, Claire Creaser, J. Fry, S. Pinfield, Valérie Spezi (2016)
Open-Access Mega-Journals: A Bibliometric ProfilePLoS ONE, 11
David Solomon (2014)
A survey of authors publishing in four megajournalsPeerJ, 2
S. Wakeling, P. Willett, Claire Creaser, J. Fry, S. Pinfield, Valérie Spezi (2017)
Transitioning from a Conventional to a 'Mega' Journal: A Bibliometric Case Study of the Journal MedicinePubl., 5
K. Anderson (2011)
Is PLoS one slowing down?
Valérie Spezi, S. Wakeling, S. Pinfield, Claire Creaser, J. Fry, P. Willett (2017)
Open-access mega-journals: The future of scholarly communication or academic dumping ground? A reviewJ. Documentation, 73
Brian Edgar, J. Willinsky (2010)
A Survey of Scholarly Journals Using Open Journal SystemsScholarly and Research Communication, 1
P. Binfield (2013)
Open access megajournals – have they changed everything?
B. Björk (2018)
Evolution of the scholarly mega-journal, 2006–2017PeerJ, 6
B. Björk, D. Solomon (2013)
The publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed journalsJ. Informetrics, 7
R. Da Silva (2015)
Selecting for impact: new data debunks old beliefs
(2017)
Monitoring the transition to open access: December 2017
Michail Kovanis, R. Porcher, P. Ravaud, L. Trinquart (2016)
The Global Burden of Journal Peer Review in the Biomedical Literature: Strong Imbalance in the Collective EnterprisePLoS ONE, 11
Thomas Gaston, P. Smart (2018)
What influences the regional diversity of reviewers: A study of medical and agricultural/biological sciences journalsLearned Publishing, 31
Dirk Krüger, Diana Marshall (2017)
Bite-size research: BMC Research Notes goes back to its rootsBMC Research Notes, 10
Janine Huisman, J. Smits (2017)
Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author’s perspectiveScientometrics, 113
The 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.
Online Information Review – Emerald Publishing
Published: Mar 15, 2021
Keywords: Open access; Scholarly publishing; Peer review; Megajournal
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.