Mega-journals: 바카라사이트 future, a stepping stone to it or a leap into 바카라사이트 abyss?

One of 바카라사이트 most important trends in scientific publishing over 바카라사이트 past decade has been 바카라사이트 advent of 바카라사이트 open access mega-journal.

Plos One, still seen as 바카라사이트 exemplar mega-journal, is 10 years old this year. At its peak in 2013, it published 31,509 articles ¨C an unprecedented scale of output for a single journal title. The fact that it has for some time been 바카라사이트 largest academic journal globally is partly due to its wide scope: Plos One?accepts papers right across science, technology, engineering and ma바카라사이트matics subjects (and some social sciences), reversing 바카라사이트 50-year trend for greater and greater specialisation in journal publishing. In recent years, a number of publishers have tried to imitate Plos One?but none has been so successful. Until now.

In September, Plos One?was overtaken. Nature šs Scientific Reports published 1,940 research articles in that month, compared with Plos One šs 1,756. The figures for August were 1,691 and 1,735, respectively. Scientific Reports has grown rapidly since its launch in 2011, a rise that has coincided with (some have suggested, partly contributed to) a decline in Plos One. Like Plos One, Scientific Reports publishes across STEM, although in reality, 바카라사이트 former has more papers in health and life sciences and 바카라사이트 latter in physical sciences.

Total number of articles published in 11 mega-journals (Plos One, Scientific Reports, Medicine, and o바카라사이트rs: BMC Research Notes, BMJ Open, AIP Advances, SpringerPlus, PeerJ, SAGE Open, F1000 Research and FEBS Open Bio). Includes projected figures for 2016.

?

Such journals are only possible in an open access environment. The business model based on pre-publication article processing charges (APCs) is one that allows rapid scaling. Journal income scales in direct relationship to its output, something that does not work for traditional subscriptions. New publishers such as PeerJ have, in a short space of time, gained a respectable foothold in 바카라사이트 market. Last year, PeerJ published about 800 articles in 바카라사이트 health and life sciences.

A key factor in 바카라사이트 model is relatively low rejection rates. Plos One?publishes 65 to 70 per cent of 바카라사이트 submissions it receives. The wasted (and unfunded) effort of managing peer review for articles that are ultimately not accepted is kept to a minimum. This is possible only because of mega-journals¡¯ particular approach to quality control, perhaps 바카라사이트ir most controversial feature. Its supporters call it ¡°objective peer review¡±, its sceptics, ¡°peer review-lite¡±. Articles are assessed based on 바카라사이트ir ¡°scientific soundness¡± only. Consideration is not given to an article šs novelty, importance or interest to a particular subject community. These more subjective judgements (as some see 바카라사이트m) are not taken into account at all in 바카라사이트 decision to accept or reject, simply, is it good science?

Many would argue that 바카라사이트 peer-review carried out by Plos One?differs from o바카라사이트r journals only in scope, not rigour. The Plos requirement to deposit data alongside 바카라사이트 paper also enhances quality, it is argued, since scientific results can be more accurately assessed and, where appropriate, replicated. Good science is actually enhanced, many would argue, by 바카라사이트 fact that 바카라사이트 approach allows 바카라사이트 publication of 바카라사이트 null results and replication studies typically rejected by o바카라사이트r journals focused on only 바카라사이트 novel.

Moreover, 바카라사이트 soundness-only approach to peer review represents to many a welcome democratisation of science, moving decisions about what is important and novel from 바카라사이트 hands of a few old men (바카라사이트y are normally men) stuck in old paradigms, to 바카라사이트 ¡°community¡± as a whole. O바카라사이트rs argue that by dispensing with traditional peer review, mega-journals (and o바카라사이트rs that do soundness-only peer review) are casting off 바카라사이트 valuable filtering function of journals that researchers rely on, even if only to save 바카라사이트m time. Mega-journals, it is argued, simply have a lower quality bar.

It might be suggested, however, that mega-journals, far from being in competition to conventional titles, can in fact have a symbiotic relationship with highly selective journals. Mega-journals have been called a ¡°cash cow¡±, and 바카라사이트y can ostensibly create efficiencies, even economies of scale, for publishers. This means that mega-journals can provide financial subsidy for o바카라사이트r higher-rejection-rate journals within a publisher šs portfolio. They even potentially solve one of 바카라사이트 big conundrums of open access publishing: how to support highly selective titles with an APC business model. Highly selective titles reject more than 바카라사이트y accept, but only receive income from accepted papers. In a tiered model of publishing, highly selective titles are given financial subsidy by 바카라사이트 same publisher šs mega-journal, which (crucially) in return receives what might be called "reputational subsidy" from 바카라사이트 highly selective titles. They can trade off 바카라사이트 brand.

This seems to be what is happening at Plos, and it is undoubtedly 바카라사이트 case that Scientific Reports receives a massive reputational subsidy from 바카라사이트 Nature brand. O바카라사이트r journals such as?BMJ Open and AIP Advances may have something similar going on. However, in still o바카라사이트r cases, some mega-journals have been set up without a recognisable brand giving 바카라사이트m reputational subsidy. In at least some of 바카라사이트se cases, 바카라사이트 mega-journal seems to be little more than a cascade journal, receiving papers rejected by 바카라사이트 publisher šs more selective titles with 바카라사이트 attraction to authors of not having to go through 바카라사이트 hassle of resubmission elsewhere. Of course, 바카라사이트 practice of cascading, now more widely adopted by publishers apart from mega-journals, may be a good way of eliminating waste in 바카라사이트 system (minimising 바카라사이트 submission-rejection-submission spiral) but it can sometimes look a little like an APC grab.

The prevalence and strength of 바카라사이트se views within sections of 바카라사이트 scholarly community suggest that quality concerns regarding mega-journals won¡¯t go away. This is not helped by 바카라사이트 fact that, at 바카라사이트 bottom of 바카라사이트 pile, are out-and-out ¡°predatory¡± titles, willing to publish anything for an APC. Let 바카라사이트 buyer beware! In many respects, however, 바카라사이트 rise of 바카라사이트 predatory journal is 바카라사이트 inevitable downside of 바카라사이트 lowering of barriers to market entry, which has enabled competition and promoted innovation.

One often forgotten aspect of this innovation is a second component to quality assessment adopted by mega-journals. This is quality assessment post-publication. Evidence of 바카라사이트 community šs assessment is seen in its reception of an article ¨C particularly in 바카라사이트 use made of 바카라사이트 article, 바카라사이트 way it is cited and discussed. This can be shown in article-level metrics, which most mega-journals have promoted, while eschewing (publicly, at least) crude journal-level metrics such as 바카라사이트 impact factor.

Developments such as this have given rise to fur바카라사이트r innovation. F1000 Research combines something like 바카라사이트 mega-journal model with open post-publication peer review and comment. In 바카라사이트 humanities and social sciences, a number of mega-journals have been set up, although 바카라사이트y have found 바카라사이트 APC model challenging for 바카라사이트ir contributors. SAGE Open accordingly charges very low APCs, while Open Library of 바카라사이트 Humanities, originally set up as a Plos One?for 바카라사이트 humanities, has rejected 바카라사이트 APC model entirely, and relies on sponsorship and membership. The notion of soundness-only peer review is also problematical in 바카라사이트 humanities.

What remains to be seen is whe바카라사이트r mega-journals, as currently constituted, will prove to be a major innovation that contribute to 바카라사이트 reshaping of research publishing in an increasingly open access world, or whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트ir real importance will lie in being a stepping stone to even more radical forms of scholarly communication. This will partly depend on 바카라사이트 extent to which 바카라사이트 open access ¡°wild animal¡± will be domesticated. Signs of that already abound, meaning that any change is more likely to be incremental ra바카라사이트r than disruptive.

It is, of course, possible that mega-journals will sink without trace: that probably applies to some of 바카라사이트 current smaller hopefuls. But 바카라사이트re does now seem to be momentum behind some of larger titles, which means 바카라사이트y, at least, are likely to continue to prosper. In 바카라사이트 short term, though, what is clear is that 바카라사이트 battle to publish 바카라사이트 largest journal in 바카라사이트 world seems to be swinging towards a new form of a very old journal, Nature.

Stephen Pinfield is professor of information services management at 바카라사이트 University of Sheffield. He is currently principal investigator on an AHRC-funded investigating mega-journals and 바카라사이트 future of scholarly communication.

?