Open-Access Mega-Journals: A Bibliometric Profile.
Open-Access Mega-Journals: A Bibliometric Profile.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1371/journal.pone.0165359
复制
发表时间：
2016
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Spezi V
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Wakeling S;Willett P;Creaser C;Fry J;Pinfield S;Spezi V
在本文中，我们提出了第一个全面的文献计量学分析的11个开放存取的大型期刊（OAMJ）。OAMJ是一个相对较新的现象，具有四个关键特征：规模大;学科范围广;金OA商业模式;同行评审政策，旨在确定研究的科学合理性，而不是评估工作的新奇或重要性。我们的调查集中在四个关键的分析模式：期刊产出（发表的文章数量和产出随时间的变化）; OAMJ作者特征（国籍和机构隶属关系）;学科领域（OAMJ的学科范围，以及子学科产出的变化）;和引文概况（每个OAMJ的引文分布，以及引用期刊的影响）。我们发现，虽然2014年至2015年11种大型期刊的总产量增长了14.9%，但这一增长主要归功于《科学报告》和《医学》的产量增加。我们还发现作者的地理分布存在很大差异。一些期刊的中国作者比例相对较高，我们认为这可能与这些期刊的高期刊影响因子（JIF）有关。大型期刊的学科范围也各不相同，有几种期刊在某些子学科中发表的文章数量不成比例地高。我们的引文分析为Björk & Catani的建议提供了支持，即OAMJ的引文分布与传统期刊相似，同时注意到11种期刊的引文率存在相当大的差异。我们的结论是，虽然OAMJ术语是有用的，作为一种手段，分组期刊共享一组关键特征，有没有这样的事情作为一个“典型的”大型期刊，我们建议几个领域的额外的研究，可能有助于我们更好地了解当前和未来的作用，OAMJ在学术交流。
In this paper we present the first comprehensive bibliometric analysis of eleven open-access mega-journals (OAMJs). OAMJs are a relatively recent phenomenon, and have been characterised as having four key characteristics: large size; broad disciplinary scope; a Gold-OA business model; and a peer-review policy that seeks to determine only the scientific soundness of the research rather than evaluate the novelty or significance of the work. Our investigation focuses on four key modes of analysis: journal outputs (the number of articles published and changes in output over time); OAMJ author characteristics (nationalities and institutional affiliations); subject areas (the disciplinary scope of OAMJs, and variations in sub-disciplinary output); and citation profiles (the citation distributions of each OAMJ, and the impact of citing journals). We found that while the total output of the eleven mega-journals grew by 14.9% between 2014 and 2015, this growth is largely attributable to the increased output of Scientific Reports and Medicine. We also found substantial variation in the geographical distribution of authors. Several journals have a relatively high proportion of Chinese authors, and we suggest this may be linked to these journals’ high Journal Impact Factors (JIFs). The mega-journals were also found to vary in subject scope, with several journals publishing disproportionately high numbers of articles in certain sub-disciplines. Our citation analsysis offers support for Björk & Catani’s suggestion that OAMJs’s citation distributions can be similar to those of traditional journals, while noting considerable variation in citation rates across the eleven titles. We conclude that while the OAMJ term is useful as a means of grouping journals which share a set of key characteristics, there is no such thing as a “typical” mega-journal, and we suggest several areas for additional research that might help us better understand the current and future role of OAMJs in scholarly communication.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
2.8
作者：
Bjork, Bo-Christer;Catani, Paul
通讯作者：
Catani, Paul
影响因子：
2.8
作者：
Xia, Jingfeng
通讯作者：
Xia, Jingfeng
影响因子：
2.7
作者：
Bjork, Bo-Christer
通讯作者：
Bjork, Bo-Christer
DOI：
10.1515/libri-2013-0021
发表时间：
2013-11-01
影响因子：
1
作者：
Fein, Christel
通讯作者：
Fein, Christel
影响因子：
2.7
作者：
Solomon, David J.
通讯作者：
Solomon, David J.