Motivations, understandings, and experiences of open-access mega-journal authors: Results of a large-scale survey

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 70, Issue 7, 2019, Pages 754-768

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

BUSINESS MODELING; GEOGRAPHICAL VARIATIONS; INTERNATIONAL SURVEY; LARGE SCALE SURVEYS; OPEN ACCESS; PEER REVIEW;

SURVEYS;

ARTICLE; DRAWING; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MOTIVATION; PEER REVIEW; SATISFACTION;

EID: 85060351005     PISSN: 23301635     EISSN: 23301643     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.24154     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Björk, B.-C. (2015). Have the “mega-journals” reached the limits to growth? PeerJ, 3, e981.
2. 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.
3. Borrego, Á., & Anglada, L. (2016). Faculty information behaviour in the electronic environment: Attitudes towards searching publishing and libraries. New Library World, 117(3/4), 173–185.
4. Bröchner, J., & Björk, B. (2008). Where to submit? Journal choice by construction management authors. Construction Management and Economics, 26(7), 739–749.
5. Cope, B., & Phillips, A. (Eds.). (2014). The future of the academic journal (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Elsevier/Chandos.
6. Domnina, T.N. (2016). A megajournal as a new type of scientific publication. Scientific and Technical Information Processing, 43(4), 241–250.
7. Fry, J., Spezi, V., Probets, S., & Creaser, C. (2016). Towards an understanding of the relationship between disciplinary research cultures and open access repository behaviors. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(11), 2710–2724.
8. Fyfe, A., Coate, K., Curry, S., Lawson, S., Moxham, N., & Røstvik, C.M. (2017). Untangling academic publishing: A history of the relationship between commercial interests, academic prestige and the circulation of research. St Andrews: St Andrews University.
9. Gibler, K.M., & Ziobrowski, A.J. (2002). Authors' perceptions and preferences among real estate journals. Real Estate Economics, 30(1), 137–157.
10. Housewright, R., Schonfeld, R.C., & Wulfson, K. (2013). Survey of academics 2012. London: Ithaka S + R | JISC | RLUK UK.
11. Johnson, R., Fosci, M., Chiarelli, A., Pinfield, S., & Jubb, M. (2017). Towards a competitive and sustainable OA market in Europe - A study of the open access market and policy environment. Brussels: Research Consulting.
12. Jubb, M., Plume, A., Oeben, S., Brammer, L., Johnson, R., Bütün, C., & Pinfield, S. (2017). Monitoring the transition to Open Access. London: Universities UK.
13. Nariani, R., & Fernandez, L. (2012). Open access publishing: What authors want. College & Research Libraries, 73(2), 182–195.
14. Pepermans, G., & Rousseau, S. (2016). The decision to submit to a journal: Another example of a valence-consistent shift? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(6), 1372–1383.
15. Quan, W., Chen, B., & Shu, F. (2017). Publish or impoverish: An investigation of the monetary reward system of science in China (1999–2016). Aslib Journal of Information Management, 69(5), 486–502.
16. Sands, R. (2014). Comparing the results from two surveys of BMJ open authors [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://blogs.bmj.com/bmjopen/2014/05/09/comparing-the-results-from-two-surveys-of-bmj-open-authors/
17. Shin, E.-J. (2017). Can the growth of mega-journals affect authors' choice of journal? Serials Review, 43(2), 137–146.
18. Solomon, D.J. (2014). A survey of authors publishing in four megajournals. PeerJ, 2, e365.
19. Spezi, V., Wakeling, S., Pinfield, S., Creaser, C., Fry, J., & Willett, P. (2017). Open-access mega-journals: The future of scholarly communication or academic dumping ground? A review. Journal of Documentation, 73(2), 263–283.
20. Spezi, V., Wakeling, S., Pinfield, S., Creaser, C., Fry, J., & Willett, P. (2018). “Let the community decide”?: The vision and reality of soundness-only peer review in open-access mega-journals. Journal of Documentation, 74(1), 137–161. Retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/JD-06-2017-0092.
21. Tenopir, C., Dalton, E., Fish, A., Christian, L., Jones, M., & Smith, M. (2016). What motivates authors of scholarly articles? The importance of journal attributes and potential audience on publication choice. Publications, 4(3), 22.
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.
23. Wakeling, S., Spezi, V., Fry, J., Creaser, C., Pinfield, S., & Willett, P. (2018). Academic communities and scholarly communication: The role of journals and mega-journals. Journal of Documentation, 75, 120–139.
24. Wakeling, S., Spezi, V., Fry, J., Creaser, C., Pinfield, S., & Willett, P. (2017). Open access megajournals: The publisher perspective (Part 1: Motivations). Learned Publishing, 30(4), 301–311.
25. Wakeling, S., Willett, P., Creaser, C., Fry, J., Pinfield, S., & Spezi, V. (2016). Open-access mega-journals: A bibliometric profile. PLoS One, 11(11), e0165359.
26. Wakeling, S., Willett, P., Creaser, C., Fry, J., Pinfield, S., & Spezi, V. (2017). Transitioning from a conventional to a ‘mega’ journal: A bibliometric case study of the journal Medicine. Publications, 5(2), 7.