Open access megajournals: The publisher perspective (part 1: Motivations)

Learned Publishing

Volumn 30, Issue 4, 2017, Pages 301-311

  Wakeling, Simon ^a   Spezi, Valérie ^b   Fry, Jenny ^c   Creaser, Claire ^b   Pinfield, Stephen ^a   Willett, Peter ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^b LOUGHBOROUGH UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^c LOUGHBOROUGH UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85028730143     PISSN: 09531513     EISSN: 17414857     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/leap.1117     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Anderson, K. (2010, 27 April). PLoS’ squandered opportunity – Their problems with the path of least resistance [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2010/04/27/plos-squandered-opportunity-the-problem-with-pursuing-the-pat h-of-least-resistance/
2. Bartling, S., & Friesike, S. (2014). Towards another scientific revolution. In S. Bartling, & S. Friesike (Eds.), Opening science: The evolving guide on how the internet is changing research, collaboration and scholarly publishing (pp. 3–15). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_1
3. Binfield, P. (2013, 3 January). Open access megajournals: Have they changed everything? [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://creativecommons.org.nz/2013/10/open-access-megajournals-have-they-changed-everything/
4. Björk, B.-C. (2015). Have the “megajournals” reached the limits to growth? PeerJ, 3, e981. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.981
5. Björk, B.-C., & Catani, P. (2016). Peer review in megajournals compared with traditional scholarly journals: Does it make a difference? Learned Publishing, 29(1), 9–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1007
6. Braun, & Clarke. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
7. Butler, D. (2008). PLoS stays afloat with bulk publishing. Nature, 454(7200), 11. https://doi.org/10.1038/454011a
8. Domnina, T. N. (2016). A megajournal as a new type of scientific publication. Scientific and Technical Information Processing, 43(4), 241–250. https://doi.org/10.3103/S0147688216040079
9. Fecher, B., & Friesike, S. (2014). Open science: One term, five schools of thought. In S. Bartling, & S. Friesike (Eds.), Opening science (pp. 17–47). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. https://doi.org/10. 1007/978-3-319-00026-8_2
10. Hey, T., & Payne, M. C. (2015). Open science decoded. Nature Physics, 11(5), 367–369. https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys3313
11. Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., & Bracken, C. C. (2002). Content analysis in mass communication: Assessment and reporting of interco-der reliability. Human Communication Research, 28(4), 587–604. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00826.x
12. Nederhof, A. J. (1985). Methods of coping with social desirability bias: A review. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15(3), 263–280. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420150303
13. Nosek, B. A., Alter, G., Banks, G. C., Borsboom, D., Bowman, S. D., Breckler, S. J., … Yarkoni, T. (2015). Promoting an open research culture. Science, 348(6242), 1422–1425. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aab2374
14. Nosek, B. A., & Bar-Anan, Y. (2012). Scientific utopia: I. Opening scientific communication. Psychological Inquiry, 23(3), 217–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2012.692215
15. Nosek, B. A., Spies, J. R., & Motyl, M. (2012). Scientific utopia. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 615–631. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612459058
16. Ross, J. S., & Krumholz, H. M. (2013). Ushering in a new era of open science through data sharing. JAMA, 309(13), 1355. https://doi. org/10.1001/jama.2013.1299
17. Sitek, D., & Bertelmann, R. (2014). Open access: A state of the art. In S. Bartling, & S. Friesike (Eds.), Opening science (pp. 139–153). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_9
18. Solomon, D. J. (2014). A survey of authors publishing in four megajournals. PeerJ, 2, e365. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.365
19. Spezi, V., Wakeling, S., Pinfield, S., Creaser, C., Fry, J., & Willett, P. (2017a). “Let the community decide”?: The vision and reality of soundness-only peer review in open access megajournals. Journal of Documentation.
20. Spezi, V., Wakeling, S., Pinfield, S., Creaser, C., Fry, J., & Willett, P. (2017b). Open access megajournals: The future of scholarly communication or academic dumping ground? A review. Journal of Documentation, 73(2), 263–283. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-06-2016-0082
21. The Center for Open Science. (2017). Our mission. Charlottesville, VA: Center for Open Science. Retrieved from https://cos.io/
22. Wakeling, S., Spezi, V., Creaser, C., Fry, J., Pinfield, S., & Willett, P. (2017). Open access megajournals: The publisher perspective (Part 2: Operational realities). Learned Publishing, 30(4), 313–322. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1118
23. Wakeling, S., Willett, P., Creaser, C., Fry, J., Pinfield, S., & Spezi, V. (2016). Open access megajournals: A bibliometric profile. PLoS One, 11(11), e0165359. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0165359
24. Wellen, R. (2013). Open access, megajournals, and MOOCs: On the political economy of academic unbundling. SAGE Open, 3(4), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244013507271