Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

0.009338023 = product of:
  0.02801407 = sum of:
    0.02801407 = product of:
      0.05602814 = sum of:
        0.05602814 = weight(_text_:reports in 4627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05602814 = score(doc=4627,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.24881059 = fieldWeight in 4627, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4627)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose 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-vice-chancellors for research at each institution. Findings A 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.

0.009338023 = product of:
  0.02801407 = sum of:
    0.02801407 = product of:
      0.05602814 = sum of:
        0.05602814 = weight(_text_:reports in 5317) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05602814 = score(doc=5317,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2251839 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04999695 = queryNorm
            0.24881059 = fieldWeight in 5317, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.503953 = idf(docFreq=1329, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5317)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.