A survey of authors publishing in four megajournals
A survey of authors publishing in four megajournals
复制标题
DOI：
10.7717/peerj.365
复制
发表时间：
2014-04-22
期刊：
影响因子：
2.7
通讯作者：
Solomon, David J.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Solomon, David J.
瞄准为了确定大型期刊作者的特征，他们提交给这些期刊的手稿的性质，影响他们决定在大型期刊上发表的因素，文章处理费（APC）或其他费用的资金来源，以及他们未来提交给大型期刊的可能性。基于网络的调查2，128名作者最近发表在BMJ Open，PeerJ，PLOS ONE或SAGE Open.Results.回应率从BMJ Open的26%到SAGE Open的47%不等。作者是国际性的，主要是最近在订阅和开放获取（OA）期刊上发表文章的学者。在期刊中，大约25%的文章是初步发现，不到一半是被其他期刊拒绝的手稿的重新提交。来自其他BMJ期刊的编辑，也许在较小程度上SAGE和PLOS期刊似乎鼓励作者将被编辑期刊拒绝的手稿提交给同一出版商出版的大型期刊。期刊的质量和审查过程的速度是所有四种期刊的重要因素。影响因子对PLOS ONE作者来说很重要，但对BMJ Open作者来说就不那么重要了，BMJ Open作者也有影响因子。评审标准和期刊是OA的事实是其他重要因素，对PeerJ作者特别重要。出版商的声誉是SAGE Open和BMJ Open的重要因素。大约一半的PLOS ONE和大约三分之一的BMJ Open和PeerJ作者使用赠款资金支付出版费用，而只有大约10%的SAGE Open使用赠款资金支付出版费用。大约60%的SAGE Open和32%的PeerJ作者自费支付出版费用，但这些期刊的费用并不高。来自所有4种期刊的大多数作者对他们的经历感到满意，并表示他们将来可能会向相同或相似的期刊投稿。大型期刊吸引了一批国际作者，他们往往是经验丰富的学者。他们选择在大型期刊上发表文章的原因有很多，但大多数人似乎更看重期刊的质量和审查/出版过程的速度。对于大多数作者来说，拥有广泛的范围并不是一个关键因素，尽管对于PeerJ和SAGE Open作者来说，OA是很重要的。大多数作者似乎对这种经历感到满意，并表示他们可能会向相同或类似的大型期刊提交未来的手稿，这似乎表明这些期刊将继续受到欢迎。
Aim. To determine the characteristics of megajournal authors, the nature of the manuscripts they are submitting to these journals, factors influencing their decision to publish in a megajournal, sources of funding for article processing charges (APCs) or other fees and their likelihood of submitting to a megajournal in the future.Methods. Web-based survey of 2,128 authors who recently published in BMJ Open, PeerJ, PLOS ONE or SAGE Open.Results. The response rate ranged from 26% for BMJ Open to 47% for SAGE Open. The authors were international, largely academics who had recently published in both subscription and Open Access (OA) journals. Across journals about 25% of the articles were preliminary findings and just under half were resubmissions of manuscripts rejected by other journals. Editors from other BMJ journals and perhaps to a lesser extent SAGE and PLOS journals appear to be encouraging authors to submit manuscripts that were rejected by the editor's journals to a megajournal published by the same publisher. Quality of the journal and speed of the review process were important factors across all four journals. Impact factor was important for PLOS ONE authors but less so for BMJ Open authors, which also has an impact factor. The review criteria and the fact the journal was OA were other significant factors particularly important for PeerJ authors. The reputation of the publisher was an important factor for SAGE Open and BMJ Open. About half of PLOS ONE and around a third of BMJ Open and PeerJ authors used grant funding for publishing charges while only about 10% of SAGE Open used grant funding for publication charges. Around 60% of SAGE Open and 32% of PeerJ authors self-funded their publication fees however the fees are modest for these journals. The majority of authors from all 4 journals were pleased with their experience and indicated they were likely to submit to the same or similar journal in the future.Conclusions. Megajournals are drawing an international group of authors who tend to be experienced academics. They are choosing to publish in megajournals for a variety of reasons but most seem to value the quality of the journal and the speed of the review/publication process. Having a broad scope was not a key factor for most authors though being OA was important for PeerJ and SAGE Open authors. Most authors appeared pleased with the experience and indicated they are likely to submit future manuscripts to the same or similar megajournal which seems to suggest these journals will continue to grow in popularity.