Quantitative portrait of open access mega-journals

被引:2
|
作者
Erfanmanesh, Mohammadamin [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Malaya, Fac Comp Sci & Informat Technol, Dept Lib & Informat Sci, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
基金
美国国家科学基金会; 美国国家卫生研究院; 中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
Mega-journals; Open access journals; Scholarly communication; Journal studies; Bibliometrics; MEGAJOURNALS; FUTURE;
D O I
10.22452/mjlis.vol24no2.7
中图分类号
G25 [图书馆学、图书馆事业]; G35 [情报学、情报工作];
学科分类号
1205 ; 120501 ;
摘要
Nowadays, Open Access Mega-Journals (OAMJs) represent a substantial part of the scholarly communication system. The current research is conducted with the aim of providing better insights into the increasingly important OAMJ phenomenon through investigation of eight reputable titles using established bibliometric methods. Results of the study showed that eight studied OAMJs were responsible for 1.87% of the total number of publication indexed in Web of Science during 2012-2016. Despite the decline in publication count of PLOS ONE over the past couple of years, it was the biggest journal in the world till 2017, when Scientific Reports overtook PLOS ONE as the most productive journal. Over 88% of the papers published in eight selected OAMJs were cited at-least once at the point in time of analysis. The highest proportions of cited and un-cited documents were seen in Scientific Reports and SpringerPlus, respectively. With regard to the three indicators, namely share of highly-cited papers, the category normalized citation impact as well as the JIF percentile, IEEE Access had by far the best performance among eight examined OAMJs. Results of the study revealed that Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, Multidisciplinary Sciences, Neurosciences, Oncology and Immunology were the most commonly assigned subject categories to OAMJs' content. The National Natural Science Foundation of China was the most important funding agency that supported the publication of around 26000 articles in eight studied OAMJs. Investigation of the geographic distribution of authors showed that the United States and China by far had the highest contribution in the content of eight studied OAMJs. There were, however, notable variations between different OAMJs.
引用
收藏
页码:115 / 131
页数:17
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] PNEUMON in the directory of open access journals
    Bouros, Demosthenes
    PNEUMON, 2010, 23 (04) : 332 - 332
  • [32] Issue of Open Access and Predatory Journals
    Akhtar, Jamshed
    JCPSP-JOURNAL OF THE COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS PAKISTAN, 2015, 25 (05): : 313 - 314
  • [33] The open access and dissemination of predatory journals
    Kara-Junior, Newton
    ARQUIVOS BRASILEIROS DE OFTALMOLOGIA, 2024, 87 (03)
  • [34] OPEN ACCESS JOURNALS AND ACADEMICS' BEHAVIOR
    Migheli, Matteo
    Ramello, Giovanni B.
    ECONOMIC INQUIRY, 2014, 52 (04) : 1250 - 1266
  • [35] The persistence of open access electronic journals
    Lightfoot, Elizabeth A.
    NEW LIBRARY WORLD, 2016, 117 (11-12) : 746 - 755
  • [36] On the impact of Gold Open Access journals
    Christian Gumpenberger
    María-Antonia Ovalle-Perandones
    Juan Gorraiz
    Scientometrics, 2013, 96 : 221 - 238
  • [37] Open-access journals defined
    Brainard, Jeffrey
    SCIENCE, 2019, 366 (6471) : 1292 - 1292
  • [38] A snapshot of open access journals in science
    Wang, Lei
    Song, Haiying
    Liu, Weishu
    CURRENT SCIENCE, 2016, 111 (07): : 1134 - 1135
  • [39] Open Access Journals and Forensic Publishing
    Knoll, James L.
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PSYCHIATRY AND THE LAW, 2014, 42 (03): : 315 - 321
  • [40] Oxford Journals' adventures in open access
    Bird, Claire
    LEARNED PUBLISHING, 2008, 21 (03) : 200 - 208