The diverse niches of megajournals: Specialism within generalism
The diverse niches of megajournals: Specialism within generalism
复制标题
DOI：
10.1002/asi.24299
复制
发表时间：
2020-07-01
影响因子：
3.5
通讯作者：
Sugimoto, Cassidy R.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Siler, Kyle;Lariviere, Vincent;Sugimoto, Cassidy R.
在过去的十年里，巨型期刊的受欢迎程度不断扩大，并在学术出版领域建立了合法的利基市场。利用数字出版的优势，巨型期刊的特点是出版量大，跨学科范围广，同行审查筛选主要考虑科学的合理性，而不是新颖性或原创性。与传统期刊相比，这些出版创新是互补的，也是竞争的。我们分析了巨型期刊(PLOS ONE，科学报告)相对于著名的通才期刊(自然，PNAS，科学)和“准巨型期刊”(自然通讯，PeerJ)是如何在不同的领域出现的。我们的结果表明，巨型期刊和著名的传统期刊都有独特的利基市场，尽管这类期刊的跨学科范围相似。这些利基--由出版量和学科多样性定义--是动态的，在所分析的大型期刊相对简短的历史中变化不同。虽然生命科学是巨型期刊的主要贡献者，但不同的巨型期刊的学科构成存在差异。多面手期刊--包括巨型期刊--的增长轨迹和学科构成反映了科学领域不断变化的知识传播和报酬结构。
Over the past decade, megajournals have expanded in popularity and established a legitimate niche in academic publishing. Leveraging advantages of digital publishing, megajournals are characterized by large publication volume, broad interdisciplinary scope, and peer-review filters that select primarily for scientific soundness as opposed to novelty or originality. These publishing innovations are complementary and competitive vis-a-vis traditional journals. We analyze how megajournals (PLOS One,Scientific Reports) are represented in different fields relative to prominent generalist journals (Nature,PNAS,Science) and "quasi-megajournals" (Nature Communications,PeerJ). Our results show that both megajournals and prominent traditional journals have distinctive niches, despite the similar interdisciplinary scopes of such journals. These niches-defined by publishing volume and disciplinary diversity-are dynamic and varied over the relatively brief histories of the analyzed megajournals. Although the life sciences are the predominant contributor to megajournals, there is variation in the disciplinary composition of different megajournals. The growth trajectories and disciplinary composition of generalist journals-including megajournals-reflect changing knowledge dissemination and reward structures in science.