Login Register Cart 0
Generic placeholder image

Current Drug Research Reviews

Editor-in-Chief

ISSN (Print): 2589-9775
ISSN (Online): 2589-9783

Back
Journal Home About Journal Editorial Board Current Issue Volumes/Issues
Subscribe
Editorial

Open-access Mega-journals in Health and Life Sciences: What Every Researcher needs to know about this Publishing Model

Author(s): Ricardo Jorge Dinis-Oliveira*

Volume 14, Issue 1, 2022

Published on: 25 February, 2022

Page: [3 - 5] Pages: 3

DOI: 10.2174/2589977514666220209101713

Abstract

A mega-journal is a peer-reviewed scientific open-access journal designed to be much larger than a traditional classical journal. The low selectivity review criteria largely focused on the scientific soundness of the research methodology and ethical issues regardless of the importance and application of the results, the fast peer review, and a very broad scope usually covering a whole discipline, such as biomedicine or social science, are the major hallmarks. This publishing model was pioneered by PLOS One and was soon followed by other publishers. A few years ago, it was believed that the academic journal landscape would dominate by the mega-journals model, but a decline has been registered in the last few years. This editorial aimed at presenting the current state-of-the-art of the open-access mega-journals (OAMJs) in scientific publications.

Keywords: Open-access mega-journals, scientific soundness, broad scope, scientific publishing, low selectivity review, peerreview.

« Previous Next »
Graphical Abstract

[1]
Wakeling S, Willett P, Creaser C, Fry J, Pinfield S, Spezi V. Open-access mega-journals: A bibliometric profile. PLoS One 2016; 11(11): e0165359.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0165359] [PMID: 27861511]
[2]
Binfield P. Open access megajournals – have they changed everything? UBC Library and Archives 2013.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.14288/1.0077872]
[3]
Spezi V, Wakeling S, Pinfield S, Creaser C, Fry J, Willett P. Open-access mega-journals. J Doc 2017; 73(2): 263-83.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JD-06-2016-0082]
[4]
Burns C. Characteristics of a megajournal: A bibliometric case study. J Inf Sci Theory Pract 2015; 3(2): 16-30.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1633/JISTaP.2015.3.2.2]
[5]
Björk BC. Evolution of the scholarly mega-journal, 2006-2017. PeerJ 2018; 6: e4357.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4357] [PMID: 29441240]
[6]
Pinto ÂP, Mejdalani G, Mounce R, Silveira LF, Marinoni L, Rafael JA. Are publications on zoological taxonomy under attack? R Soc Open Sci 2021; 8(2): 201617.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.201617] [PMID: 33972859]
[7]
Solomon DJ. A survey of authors publishing in four megajournals. PeerJ 2014; 2: e365.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.365] [PMID: 24795855]
[8]
Wakeling S, Creaser C, Pinfield S, et al. Motivations, understandings, and experiences of open-access mega-journal authors: Results of a large-scale survey. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 2019; 70(7): 754-68.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.24154] [PMID: 31763360]
[9]
Weng TL, Chu FY, Cheng BR, Chen TJ. The element of family medicine in the mega journal of the family medicine specialty: A bibliometric analysis of the journal, Chinese General Practice. Medicine (Baltimore) 2021; 100(10): e24891.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000024891] [PMID: 33725846]
[10]
MacCallum CJ. ONE for all: The next step for PLoS. PLoS Biol 2006; 4(11): e401.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040401] [PMID: 17523266]
[11]
Sitek D, Bertelmann R. Open access: A state of the art. In: Bartling S, Friesike S, Eds. Opening Science: The Evolving Guide on How the Internet is Changing Research, Collaboration and Scholarly Publishing. Cham: Springer International Publishing 2014; pp. 139-53.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_9]
[12]
Davis P. Scientific reports overtakes PLOS ONE as largest megajournal. Available from: https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/04/06/scientific-reports-overtakes-plos-one-as- largest-megajournal/ (Accessed on 01/11/2021).
[13]
Petersen AM, Pan RK, Pammolli F, Fortunato S. Methods to account for citation inflation in research evaluation. Res Policy 2019; 48(7): 1855-65.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.04.009]
[14]
Petrou C. Guest post – the megajournal lifecycle. Available from: https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2020/05/07/guest-post- the-megajournal-lifecycle/ (Accessed on 01/11/2021).
[15]
Heneberg P. The troubles of high-profile open access megajournals. Scientometrics 2019; 120(2): 733-46.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03144-6]
[16]
Davis P. Future of the OA megajournal. Available from: https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2018/01/10/future-oa-megajournal/ (Accessed on 01/11/2021).
[17]
Johnson R, Watkinson A, Mabe M. The STM report: An overview of scientific and scholarly publishing. STM. The Hague: International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers 2018.
[18]
Van Noorden R. Open access: The true cost of science publishing. Nature 2013; 495(7442): 426-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/495426a] [PMID: 23538808]
[19]
Petersen AM. Megajournal mismanagement: Manuscript decision bias and anomalous editor activity at PLOS ONE. J Informetrics 2019; 13(4): 100974.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2019.100974]
[20]
Björk B-C. Have the “mega-journals” reached the limits to growth? PeerJ 2015; 3: e981-1.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.981] [PMID: 26038735]

Rights & Permissions Print Cite
Article Metrics
30
1
© 2024 Bentham Science Publishers | Privacy Policy