Motivations, understandings, and experiences of open-access mega-journal authors: Results of a large-scale survey.
Motivations, understandings, and experiences of open-access mega-journal authors: Results of a large-scale survey.
复制标题
开放获取大型期刊作者的动机、理解和经验：大规模调查的结果。
DOI：
10.1002/asi.24154
复制
发表时间：
2019
影响因子：
3.5
通讯作者：
Wakeling S
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Wakeling S
开放获取大型期刊（OAMJ）具有规模大、范围广、开放获取（OA）商业模式和“唯合理性”的同行评议等特点。最后一个有争议的折扣的新奇，重要性和相关性提交的文章和评估只有他们的“健全性”。本文报告了一项国际作者调查的结果（n = 11，883），比较了OAMJ作者与其他OA和订阅期刊作者的反应，并在不同的OAMJ之间进行了比较。值得注意的是，OAMJ作者对只考虑可靠性的同行评审的理解很低：三分之二的人认为OAMJ考虑了新奇，重要性和相关性，尽管存在明显的地理差异。然而，作者对OAMJ的满意度很高，超过80%的OAMJ作者表示他们会在同一期刊上再次发表文章，尽管标题不同，水平略低于订阅期刊（超过90%）。他们选择在OAMJ上发表文章的原因包括各种各样的因素，与其他期刊的作者给出的原因没有显著差异，最重要的包括期刊的质量和同行评议的质量。大约有一半的OAMJ文章在提交给OAMJ之前已经在其他地方提交，有一些证据表明来自同一出版商的期刊之间的文章“级联”。
Open‐access mega‐journals (OAMJs) are characterized by their large scale, wide scope, open‐access (OA) business model, and “soundness‐only” peer review. The last of these controversially discounts the novelty, significance, and relevance of submitted articles and assesses only their “soundness.” This article reports the results of an international survey of authors (n =11,883), comparing the responses of OAMJ authors with those of other OA and subscription journals, and drawing comparisons between different OAMJs. Strikingly, OAMJ authors showed a low understanding of soundness‐only peer review: two‐thirds believed OAMJs took into account novelty, significance, and relevance, although there were marked geographical variations. Author satisfaction with OAMJs, however, was high, with more than 80% of OAMJ authors saying they would publish again in the same journal, although there were variations by title, and levels were slightly lower than subscription journals (over 90%). Their reasons for choosing to publish in OAMJs included a wide variety of factors, not significantly different from reasons given by authors of other journals, with the most important including the quality of the journal and quality of peer review. About half of OAMJ articles had been submitted elsewhere before submission to the OAMJ with some evidence of a “cascade” of articles between journals from the same publisher.