JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
Characteristics of a Megajournal: A Bibliometric Case Study
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
Characteristics of a Megajournal: A Bibliometric Case Study
Burns, C. Sean;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
The term megajournal is used to describe publication platforms, like PLOS ONE, that claim to incorporate peer review processes and web technologies that allow fast review and publishing. These platforms also publish without the constraints of periodic issues and instead publish daily. We conducted a yearlong bibliometric profile of a sample of articles published in the first several months after the launch of PeerJ, a peer reviewed, open access publishing platform in the medical and biological sciences. The profile included a study of author characteristics, peer review characteristics, usage and social metrics, and a citation analysis. We found that about 43% of the articles are collaborated on by authors from different nations. Publication delay averaged 68 days, based on the median. Almost 74% of the articles were coauthored by males and females, but less than a third were first authored by females. Usage and social metrics tended to be high after publication but declined sharply over the course of a year. Citations increased as social metrics declined. Google Scholar and Scopus citation counts were highly correlated after the first year of data collection (Spearman rho
 Keywords
Megajournals;Bibliometrics;Gender Differences;Peer Review;Open Access;Case Study;
 Language
English
 Cited by
1.
Gender differences in patterns of authorship do not affect peer review outcomes at an ecology journal, Functional Ecology, 2015, 30, 1, 126  crossref(new windwow)
2.
Transitioning from a Conventional to a ‘Mega’ Journal: A Bibliometric Case Study of the Journal Medicine, Publications, 2017, 5, 2, 7  crossref(new windwow)
3.
Open-access mega-journals, Journal of Documentation, 2017, 73, 2, 263  crossref(new windwow)
 References
1.
Acton, R. M. (2010). scrapeR: Tools for scraping data from HTML and XML documents. R package version 0.1.6. Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=scrapeR

2.
Amat, C. B. (2008). Editorial and publication delay of papers submitted to 14 selected food research journals. Influence of online posting. Scientometrics, 74(3), 379-389. crossref(new window)

3.
Binmore, P. (2013). Open access megajournals: Have they changed everything? Keynote presentation presented at University of British Columbia UBC Open. Retrieved from http://creativecommons.org.nz/2013/10/open-access-egajournals-have-they-changed-everything

4.
Birukou, A., Wakeling, J. R., Bartolini, C., Casati, F., Marchese, M., Mirylenka, K., Osman, N., Ragone, A., Sierra, C., & Wasser, A. (2011, December). Alternatives to peer review: Novel approaches for research evaluation. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience.

5.
Björk, B., & Solomon, D. (2012). Open access versus subscription journals: A comparison of scientific impact. BMC Medicine, 10(73).

6.
Björk, B., & Solomon, D. (2013). The publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed journals. Journal of Informetrics, 7(4), 914-923. crossref(new window)

7.
Blackburn, J. L., & Hakel, M. D. (2006). An examination of sources of peer-review bias. Psychological Science, 17(5), 378-382. crossref(new window)

8.
Bornmann, L. (2008). Scientific peer review: An analysis of the peer review process from the perspective of sociology of science theories. Human Architecture: Journal of the Sociology of Self-Knowledge, 6(2), 23-38.

9.
Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2010). How long is the peer review process for journal manuscripts? A case study on Angewandte Chemie International Edition. Chimia, 64, 72-77. crossref(new window)

10.
Bornmann, L., & Marx, W. (2012). The Anna Karenina principle: A way of thinking about success in science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(10), 2037-2051. crossref(new window)

11.
Bornmann, L., Wolf, M., & Daniel, H.-D. (2012). Closed versus open reviewing of journal manuscripts: How far do comments differ in language use? Scientometrics, 91(3), 843-856. crossref(new window)

12.
Calver, M., Wardell-Johnson, G., Bradley, S., & Taplin, R. (2010). What makes a journal international? A case study using conservation biology journals. Scientometrics, 85, 387-400. crossref(new window)

13.
Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (2011). Understanding current causes of women’s underrepresentation in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(8), 3157-3162. crossref(new window)

14.
Cope, W. W., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). Signs of epistemic disruption: Transformations in the knowledge system of the academic journal. First Monday, 14(4).

15.
Cronin, B., & Franks, S. (2006). Trading cultures: Resource mobilization and service rendering in the life sciences as revealed in the journal article’s paratext. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(14), 1909-1918. crossref(new window)

16.
Ewing, J. (2004). The orthodoxy of open access. Nature Focus. Retrieved from http://www.nature.com/nature/focusaccessdebate/32.html

17.
Eysenbach, G. (2006). Citation advantage of open access articles. PLOS Biology, 4(5), e157. crossref(new window)

18.
Field, A., Miles, J., & Field, Z. (2012). Discovering statistics using R. Los Angeles: Sage.

19.
Garfield, E. (1977). What is a journal? Essays of an Information Scientist: Vol. 1. 1962-1973 (pp. 6-7). Philadelphia: ISI Press. Original work published 1964.

20.
Garfield, E. (1999). Journal impact factor: A brief review. CMAJ, 61(8), 979-980. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1230709.

21.
Giraudoux, P. (2014). pgirmess: Data analysis in ecology. R package version 1.5.9. Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/packages=pgirmess

22.
Grolemund, G., & Wickham, H. (2011). Dates and times made easy with lubridate. Journal of Statistical Software, 40(3), 1-25. Retrieved from http://www.jstatsoft.org/v40/i03

23.
Grosjean, P., & Ibanez, F. (2014). pastecs: Package for analysis of space-time ecological series. R package version 1.3-18. Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=pastecs

24.
Harrell, Jr., F. E. (2014). Hmisc: Harrell miscellaneous. R package version 3.14-5. Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=Hmisc

25.
Larivière, V., Ni, C., Gingras, Y, Cronin, B., & Sugimoto, C. (2013). Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science. Nature, 504(7479), 211-213. crossref(new window)

26.
Lee, C. J., Sugimoto, C. R., Zhang, G., & Cronin, B. (2013). Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(1), 2-17. crossref(new window)

27.
Lipworth, W., & Kerridge, I. (2011). Shifting power relations and the ethics of journal peer Review. Social Epistemology, 25(1), 97-121. crossref(new window)

28.
Lloyd, M. E. (1990). Gender factors in reviewer recommendations for manuscript publication. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23(4), 539-543. crossref(new window)

29.
Luwel, M., & Moed, H. F. (1998). Publication delays in the science field and their relationship to the ageing of scientific literature. Scientometrics, 41(1-2), 29-40. crossref(new window)

30.
McVeigh, M. E., & Mann, S. J. (2009). The Journal Impact Factor denominator: Defining citable (counted) items. Journal of the American Medical Association, 302(10), 1107-1109. crossref(new window)

31.
MacCallum, C. J. (2011). Why ONE is more than 5. PLoS Biol, 9(12):e1001235+. crossref(new window)

32.
Merton, R. K. (1973a). The normative structure of science. In N. W. Storer (Ed.), The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (pp. 267-278). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

33.
Merton, R. K. (1973b). The Matthew Effect in science. In N. W. Storer (Ed.), The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (pp. 439-459). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

34.
Merton, R. K. (1973c). Institutionalized patterns of evaluation in science. In N. W. Storer (Ed.), The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (pp. 460-496). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

35.
Neuhäuser, M. (2012). Nonparametric statistical tests: A computational approach. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.

36.
Opthof, T., Coronel, R., & Janse, M. J. (2000). Submissions, editorial process and impact factor 1992-2000. Cardiovascular Research, 47(2), 203-206. crossref(new window)

37.
Paludi, M. A., & Bauer, W. D. (1983). Goldberg revisited: What’s in an author’s name. Sex Roles, 9(3), 387-390. crossref(new window)

38.
Pautasso, M., & Schafer, H. (2010). Peer review delay and selectivity in ecology journals. Scientometrics, 84(2), 307-315. crossref(new window)

39.
PeerJ. (2015). Editorial criteria. Retrieved from https://peerj.com/about/editorial-criteria

40.
PeerJ. (2014). FAQ. Retrieved from https://peerj.com/about/FAQ

41.
Petty, R. E., Fleming, M. A., & Fabrigar, L. R. (1999). The review process at PSPB: Correlates of interviewer agreement and manuscript acceptance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(2), 188-203. crossref(new window)

42.
PLOS ONE (2014). PLOS ONE Journal Information. Retrieved from http://www.plosone.org/static/information.action

43.
R Core Team. (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org

44.
Revelle, W. (2014). psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research. R package version 1.4.8. Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych

45.
Solomon, D. J. (2014). A survey of authors publishing in four megajournals. PeerJ, 2, e365. crossref(new window)

46.
Solomon, D. J., & Björk, B. (2012). Publication fees in open access publishing: Sources of funding and factors influencing choice of journal. Journal of the American Society of Information Science & Technology, 63(1), 97-107.

47.
Townend, J. (2002). Practical statistics for environmental and biological scientists. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons, LTD.

48.
Warnes, G. R. (2013). gmodels: Various R programming tools for model fitting. R package version 2.15.4.1. Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=gmodels

49.
West, J. D., Jacquet, J., King, M. M., Correll, S. J., & Bergstrom, C. T. (2013). The role of gender in scholarly authorship. PLOS ONE, 8(7): e66212. crossref(new window)

50.
Wickham, H. (2007). Reshaping data with the {reshape} package. Journal of Statistical Software, 21(12), 1-20. Retrieved from http://www.jstatsoft.org/v21/i12

51.
Wickham, H. (2009). ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. New York: Springer.

52.
Wickham, H., & Francois, R. (2014). dpylr: A grammar of data manipulation. R package version 0.3.0.3. Retrieved from http://CRAN-R-project.org/package=dpylr