Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.04027951 = sum of:
  0.037255533 = product of:
    0.14902213 = sum of:
      0.14902213 = weight(_text_:authors in 5317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.14902213 = score(doc=5317,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.24157293 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052990302 = queryNorm
          0.61688256 = fieldWeight in 5317, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5317)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.0030239774 = product of:
    0.006047955 = sum of:
      0.006047955 = weight(_text_:e in 5317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.006047955 = score(doc=5317,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.07616667 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052990302 = queryNorm
          0.07940422 = fieldWeight in 5317, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5317)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

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.

Language

e

0.002138275 = product of:
  0.00427655 = sum of:
    0.00427655 = product of:
      0.0085531 = sum of:
        0.0085531 = weight(_text_:e in 3548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0085531 = score(doc=3548,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.07616667 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052990302 = queryNorm
            0.112294525 = fieldWeight in 3548, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3548)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose Open-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/approach This 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. Findings While 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/value This 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.

Language

e

0.0015119887 = product of:
  0.0030239774 = sum of:
    0.0030239774 = product of:
      0.006047955 = sum of:
        0.006047955 = weight(_text_:e in 4627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006047955 = score(doc=4627,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07616667 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052990302 = queryNorm
            0.07940422 = fieldWeight in 4627, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4627)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Language

e