Transitioning from a conventional to a 'mega' journal: A bibliometric case study of the journal Medicine

Publications

Volumn 5, Issue 2, 2017, Pages

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

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^b LOUGHBOROUGH UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Bibliometrics; Mega journal; Open access

Indexed keywords

EID: 85033224805     PISSN: None     EISSN: 23046775     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/publications5020007     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. MacRae, D. Tips for Journal Editors Transitioning to Open Access and the Role of Mega-Journals in the Publishing Landscape. Available online: http://www.editage.com/insights/tips-for-journaleditors- transitioning-to-open-access-and-the-role-of-mega-journals-in-the-publishing-landscape (accessed on 3 January 2017).
2. Wolters Kluwer Guidelines and Information for Medicine Reviewers. Available online: http://journals.lww. com/md-journal/Pages/Medicine-Reviewers.aspx (accessed on 3 January 2017).
3. Beall, J. The Decline of Medicine, A Wolters Kluwer Health Megajournal. Available online: https://web. archive.org/web/20160906081229/ (accessed on 3 January 2017).
4. Spezi, V.;Wakeling, S.; Pinfield, S.; Creaser, C.; Fry, J.;Willett, P. Open-Access mega-journals: The future of scholarly communication or academic dumping ground? A review. J. Doc. 2017, 73, 263-283.
5. Björk, B.-C. Have the "mega-journals" reached the limits to growth? PeerJ 2015, 3, e981.
6. Binfield, P. Open Access Megajournals-Have They Changed Everything? Available online: http:// creativecommons.org.nz/2013/10/open-access-megajournals-have-they-changed-everything/ (accessed on 3 January 2017).
7. Anderson, K. PLoS' Squandered Opportunity-Their Problems with the Path of Least Resistance. Sch. Kitchen Blog, 2010. Available online: https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2010/04/27/plos-squanderedopportunity- the-problem-with-pursuing-the-path-of-least-resistance/ (accessed on 14 March 2016).
8. Solomon, D.J. A survey of authors publishing in four megajournals. PeerJ 2014, 2, e365.
9. Calcagno, V.; Demoinet, E.; Gollner, K.; Guidi, L.; Ruths, D.; de Mazancourt, C. Flows of research manuscripts among scientific journals reveal hidden submission patterns. Science 2012, 338, 1065-1069.
10. Fein, C. Multidimensional journal evaluation of PLOS ONE. Libri 2013, 63, 259-271.
11. Burns, C.S. Characteristics of a megajournal: A bibliometric case study. J. Inf. Sci. Theory Pract. 2015, 3, 16-30.
12. Björk, B.-C.; Catani, P. Peer review in megajournals compared with traditional scholarly journals: Does it make a difference? Learn. Publ. 2016, 29, 9-12.
13. Wakeling, S.; Willett, P.; Creaser, C.; Fry, J.; Pinfield, S.; Spezi, V. Open-access mega-journals: A bibliometric profile. PLOS ONE 2016, 11, e0165359.
14. Tiew,W.S. Single journal bibliometric studies: A review. Malays. J. Libr. Inf. Sci. 1997, 2, 93-114.
15. Wan, K.; Anyi, U.; Zainab, A.N.; Anuar, N.B. Bibliometric studies on single journals: A review. Malays. J. Libr. Inf. Sci. 2009, 14, 17-55.
16. Yan, S.; Rousseau, R.; Huang, S. Contributions of chinese authors in PLOS ONE. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2016, 67, 543-549.
17. Wang, N.-X. China's chemists should avoid the Vanity Fair. Nature 2011, 476, 253.