Search results

1 – 10 of 18
To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 12 November 2018

Bo-Christer Björk

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…

Abstract

Purpose

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/approach

Submission, 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.

Findings

The 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/value

This 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.

Details

Online Information Review, vol. 45 no. 2
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1468-4527

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here

Abstract

Details

Evaluating Scholarship and Research Impact
Type: Book
ISBN: 978-1-78756-390-2

Content available
Article
Publication date: 13 March 2017

Valerie Spezi, Simon Wakeling, Stephen Pinfield, Claire Creaser, Jenny Fry and Peter Willett

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…

Downloads
12412

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.

Details

Journal of Documentation, vol. 73 no. 2
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0022-0418

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 17 August 2015

Mike McGrath

– This paper aims to review the current LIS literature for document supply, resource sharing and other issues such as open access that have an impact on the service.

Abstract

Purpose

This paper aims to review the current LIS literature for document supply, resource sharing and other issues such as open access that have an impact on the service.

Design/methodology/approach

The approach is based on the scanning of about 150 journals, reports, websites and blogs.

Findings

Important changes are taking place at the British Library. The new (4th) edition of the STM report is well worth reading. Much again, on open access, particularly the high costs of Gold. Elsevier comes in for some more bad press.

Originality/value

The only regular literature review that focuses on interlending, document supply and related issues.

Details

Interlending & Document Supply, vol. 43 no. 3
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0264-1615

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 14 November 2017

Gayle Rosemary Chan and Allan Shi-Chung Cheung

While open access (OA) offers an alternative to the unsustainable pricing of serials and supports a core value of ensuring openness to knowledge, the perceived value of…

Abstract

Purpose

While open access (OA) offers an alternative to the unsustainable pricing of serials and supports a core value of ensuring openness to knowledge, the perceived value of the impact of OA journals is still lacking consensus among stakeholders. This study is based on the analysis of the University of Hong Kong (HKU) research publication data within four broad disciplines – health science, life science, physical science and social science – and the purpose of this paper is to understand the perspectives and preferences of academic researchers around OA. The findings are useful to libraries in shaping their strategies for meeting the rising challenges of scholarly publishing.

Design/methodology/approach

Article publication data from HKU have been collected and analyzed with the purpose of exploring general OA trends and understanding authors’ incentives for publishing in OA journals.

Findings

The explosion in the number of OA journals in recent years has not only impacted on how libraries manage contents and budgets, but also on academic researchers’ choice of journals for submitting their articles for publication. This study conducted at the HKU indicated that academic researchers have a gradual tendency to shift toward publishing their work in OA journals, and interestingly, the shifts are to some extent discipline specific.

Research limitations/implications

The OA marketplace is currently undergoing a state of flux. The OA model of funding through article publication charges, process of peer review and reputation in the marketplace are under rapid development.

Practical implications

As OA journals take up a sizeable market share of the scholarly journal publishing market, libraries need to stay abreast of developments in the OA sector in order to respond to researcher needs. Understanding the thinking behind researcher’s decisions in choosing venue for submission of publications helps to advance research support services which the library offers.

Social implications

The change in researcher behavior prompted by the gravitation toward sharing of research contents in scholarly communication networks and broader choice of OA journals have resulted in a positive growth of OA articles publishing at the HKU.

Originality/value

This study is based on actual HKU publication data in the past ten years, and it is useful for understanding HKU researchers’ attitudes toward OA publications and in particular the longitudinal trends in shifting toward OA publishing within the context of the university’s open policy and within the global OA landscape.

Details

Library Management, vol. 38 no. 8/9
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0143-5124

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here

Abstract

Details

Evaluating Scholarship and Research Impact
Type: Book
ISBN: 978-1-78756-390-2

To view the access options for this content please click here
Book part
Publication date: 27 June 2018

Jeffrey W. Alstete, Nicholas J. Beutell and John P. Meyer

Abstract

Details

Evaluating Scholarship and Research Impact
Type: Book
ISBN: 978-1-78756-390-2

Content available
Article
Publication date: 8 January 2018

Valerie Spezi, Simon Wakeling, Stephen Pinfield, Jenny Fry, Claire Creaser and Peter Willett

The 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”…

Downloads
3673

Abstract

Purpose

The 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/approach

The 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.

Findings

Findings 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/value

The 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.

Details

Journal of Documentation, vol. 74 no. 1
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0022-0418

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 7 April 2015

Matt Gallagher

This paper aims to give an overview of OpenCon 2014, organized by the Right to Research Coalition, SPARC (The Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition) and an…

Downloads
407

Abstract

Purpose

This paper aims to give an overview of OpenCon 2014, organized by the Right to Research Coalition, SPARC (The Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition) and an organizing committee of students and early career researchers from around the world that took place between the 14th and 17th of November 2014 in Washington DC.

Design/methodology/approach

A narrative approach was used to describe events.

Findings

OpenCon 2014 is an exciting new conference that targets early career librarians and researchers who are involved with and/or interested in aspects of the open-access movement. It is attempting to galvanize the upcoming generation of scholars to demand more of traditional publishing models by bringing together a selective group that spans diverse interests and experience levels.

Originality/value

This report outlines the author's takeaways and opinions concerning the events of the conference, as well as identifies some of the themes and issues that were relevant to librarians in research institutions.

Details

Library Hi Tech News, vol. 32 no. 2
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0741-9058

Keywords

To view the access options for this content please click here
Article
Publication date: 11 September 2017

Bo-Christer Björk

The purpose of this paper is to look at third party journal portals, which facilitate the low-cost publishing of open access journals. Portals have become very important…

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to look at third party journal portals, which facilitate the low-cost publishing of open access journals. Portals have become very important enablers for converting journals published by scholarly societies and universities to open access, in particular in the social sciences and humanities.

Design/methodology/approach

Portals were identified using a combination of methods including a literature search, interviews with experts, a key word web search and by analyzing web addresses and publishers in data from the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ).

Findings

In total, 21 portals fitting our definition were identified. Together these published more than 6,000 journals. They contribute around 10 percent of the journals indexed in the DOAJ, and the content is very highly skewed to certain countries, in particular Latin America and Asia.

Originality/value

While there have been earlier case study reports about individual portals, especially SciElo, this is probably the first systematic study of this phenomenon as a whole.

Details

Online Information Review, vol. 41 no. 5
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1468-4527

Keywords

1 – 10 of 18