“Let the community decide”? The vision and reality of soundness-only peer review in open-access mega-journals

Journal of Documentation

Volumn 74, Issue 1, 2018, Pages 137-161

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

^a LOUGHBOROUGH UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^c LOUGHBOROUGH UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Economics; Electronic journals; Electronic publishing; Free publications; Journal publishers; Publishing

Indexed keywords

EID: 85030243813     PISSN: 00220418     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1108/JD-06-2017-0092     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Adams, C. (2011), “PLOS ONE (web log post)”, SPARC website, available at: https://sparcopen.org/our-work/innovator/plos-one/ (accessed 10 May 2017).
2. Binfield, P. (2013), “Open access megajournals – have they changed everything? (web log post)”, Creative Commons website, available at: http://creativecommons.org.nz/2013/10/open-access-megajournals-have-they-changed-everything/ (accessed 3 January 2017).
3. Björk, B.-C. (2015), “Have the ‘mega-journals’ reached the limits to growth?”, PeerJ, Vol. 3, p. e981.
4. Björk, B.-C. and Catani, P. (2016), “Peer review in megajournals compared with traditional scholarly journals: does it make a difference?”, Learned Publishing, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 9-12.
5. Björk, B.-C. and Hedlund, T. (2015), “Emerging new methods of peer review in scholarly journals”, Learned Publishing, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 85-91.
6. Blackburn, J.L. and Hakel, M.D. (2006), “An examination of sources of peer-review bias”, Psychological Science, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 378-382.
7. Bohannon, J. (2013), “Who’s afraid of peer review?”, Science, Vol. 342 No. 6154, pp. 60-65.
8. Bornmann, L. (2011), “Scientific peer review”, Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 197-245.
9. Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006), “Using thematic analysis in psychology”, Qualitative Research in Psychology, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 77-101.
10. Buriak, J.M. (2015), “Mega-journals and peer review: can quality and standards survive?”, Chemistry of Materials, Vol. 27 No. 7, pp. 2243-2243.
11. Cope, B. and Phillips, A. (Eds) (2014), The Future of the Academic Journal, 2nd ed., Chandos Publishing, Oxford.
12. Epstein, S. (2016), “A few words on sound science, megajournals, and an announcement about SpringerPlus (web log post)”, SpringerOpen Blog, available at: http://blogs.springeropen.com/springeropen/2016/06/13/a-few-words-on-sound-science-megajournals-and-an-announcement-about-springerplus/ (accessed 12 June 2017).
13. Eve, M.P. (2014), Open Access and the Humanities: Contexts, Controversies and the Future, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, available at: www.martineve.com/images/uploads/2014/11/Eve_2014_Open-Access-and-the-Humanities.pdf
14. Fox, J. and Petchey, O.L. (2010), “Pubcreds: Fixing the peer review process by ‘privatizing’ the reviewer commons”, Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, Vol. 91 No. 3, pp. 325-333.
15. Franklin, R. (2010), “Putting peer review on trial”, Physics World, December, p. 17.
16. HEFCE (2012), “Panel Criteria and Working Methods. REF 01.2012”, Higher Education Funding Council for England, London, available at: www.ref.ac.uk/media/ref/content/pub/panelcriteriaandworkingmethods/01_12.pdf (accessed 12 June 2017).
17. Lăzăroiu, G. (2017), “Do mega-journals constitute the future of scholarly communication?”, Educational Philosophy and Theory, pp. 1-4.
18. Lee, C.J., Sugimoto, C.R., Zhang, G. and Cronin, B. (2013), “Bias in peer review”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 2-17.
19. Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J. and Bracken, C.C. (2002), “Content analysis in mass communication: assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability”, Human Communication Research, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 587-604.
20. Mulligan, A., Hall, L. and Raphael, E. (2013), “Peer review in a changing world: an international study measuring the attitudes of researchers”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 132-161.
21. Nicholas, D., Watkinson, A., Jamali, H.R., Herman, E., Tenopir, C., Volentine, R., Allard, S. and Levine, K. (2015), “Peer review: still king in the digital age”, Learned Publishing, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 15-21.
22. Pattinson, D. (2014), “PLOS ONE publishes its 100,000th article (web log post)”, EveryONE, available at: http://blogs.plos.org/everyone/2014/06/23/plos-one-publishes-100000th-article/ (accessed 12 June 2017).
23. Pinfield, S. (2015), “Making open access work”, Online Information Review, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 604-636.
24. Procter, R.N., Williams, R. and Stewart, J. (2010), “If you build it, will they come? How researchers perceive and use web 2.0”, Research Network Information, London, available at: http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/56246/1/WRAP_Procter_If you build it will they come.pdf (accessed 12 June 2017).
25. Pulverer, B. (2013), “Impact fact-or fiction?”, The EMBO Journal, Vol. 32 No. 12, pp. 1651-1652.
26. Research Information Network (2015), “Scholarly communication and peer review: the current landscape and future trends”, London, available at: https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/pstorage-wellcome-4792389547823904/8149739/scholarlycommunicationandpeerreviewmar15.pdf (accessed 12 June 2017).
27. Rowland, F. (2002), “The peer-review process”, Learned Publishing, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 247-258.
28. Scientific Reports (2017), “Guide to referees”, Scientific Reports, available at: www.nature.com/srep/journal-policies/referees♯criteria (accessed 30 May 2017).
29. Sense About Science (2009), “Peer Review Survey 2009”, London, available at: http://senseaboutscience.org/activities/peer-review-survey-2009/ (accessed 12 June 2017).
30. Smith, R. (2006), “Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals”, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, Vol. 99 No. 4, pp. 178-182.
31. Spezi, V., Wakeling, S., Pinfield, S., Creaser, C., Fry, J. and Willett, P. (2017), “Open-access mega-journals: the future of scholarly communication or academic dumping ground? A review”, Journal of Documentation, Vol. 73 No. 2, pp. 263-283.
32. Taylor, M. (2015), “What are we going to call PLOS ONE-style peer-review?”, Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week, available at: https://svpow.com/2015/04/24/what-are-we-going-to-call-plos-one-style-peer-review/ (accessed 12 June 2017).
33. Taylor & Francis (2015), “Author services peer review in 2015: a global view”, London, available at: http://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/peer-review-in-2015/ (accessed 12 June 2017).
34. Tennant, J.P., Dugan, J.M., Graziotin, D., Jacques, D.C., Waldner, F., Mietchen, D., Elkhatib, Y.B., Collister, L., Pikas, C.K., Crick, T., Masuzzo, P., Caravaggi, A., Berg, D.R., Niemeyer, K.E., Ross-Hellauer, T., Mannheimer, S., Rigling, L., Katz, D.S., Greshake Tzovaras, B., Pacheco-Mendoza, J., Fatima, N., Poblet, M., Isaakidis, M., Irawan, D.E., Renaut, S., Madan, C.R., Matthias, L., Nørgaard Kjær, J., O’Donnell, D.P., Neylon, C., Kearns, S., Selvaraju, M. and Colomb, J. (2017), “A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review”, F1000 Research, Vol. 6 p. 1151.
35. Thelwall, M., Haustein, S., Larivière, V. and Sugimoto, C.R. (2013), “Do altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other social web services”, PLOS ONE, Vol. 8 No. 5.
36. Velterop, J. (2015), “Peer review – issues, limitations, and future development”, ScienceOpen Research, doi: 10.14293/S2199-1006.1.SOR-EDU.AYXIPS.v1.
37. Wakeling, S., Spezi, V., Creaser, C., Fry, J., Pinfield, S. and Willett, P. (2017), “Open-access mega-journals: the publisher perspective (2) – operational realities”, Learned Publishing, forthcoming.
38. Wakeling, S., Spezi, V., Fry, J., Creaser, C., Pinfield, S. and Willett, P. (2017), “Open-access mega-journals: the publisher perspective (1) – motivations”, Learned Publishing (forthcoming).
39. Wakeling, S., Willett, P., Creaser, C., Fry, J., Pinfield, S. and Spezi, V. (2016), “Open-access mega-journals: a bibliometric profile”, PLOS ONE, Vol. 11 No. 11.
40. Ware, M. (2008a), Peer Review: Benefits, Perceptions and Alternatives, Publishing Research Consortium, London, available at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.214.9676&rep=rep1&type=pdf (accessed 12 June 2017).
41. Ware, M. (2008b), Peer Review in Scholarly Journals, Publishing Research Consortium, London, available at: http://publishingresearchconsortium.com/index.php/112-prc-projects/research-reports/peer-review-in-scholarly-journals-research-report/142-peer-review-in-scholarly-journals-perspective-of-the-scholarly-community-an-international-study (accessed 12 June 2017).
42. Ware, M. (2011), “Peer review: recent experience and future directions”, New Review of Information Networking, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 23-53.
43. Ware, M. and Mabe, M. (2009), “The STM Report: an overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing”, Oxford, available at: www.stm-assoc.org/2009_10_13_MWC_STM_Report.pdf (accessed 12 June 2017).
44. Ware, M. and Mabe, M. (2015), “The STM Report”, International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers, The Hague, available at: www.markwareconsulting.com/the-stm-report/ (accessed 12 June 2017).
45. Warne, V. (2016), “Rewarding reviewers – sense or sensibility? A Wiley study explained”, Learned Publishing, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 41-50.