Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.1633/JISTaP.2015.3.2.2

Characteristics of a Megajournal: A Bibliometric Case Study  

Burns, C. Sean (College of Communication and Information School of Information Science University of Kentucky)
Publication Information
Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice / v.3, no.2, 2015 , pp. 16-30 More about this Journal
Abstract
The term megajournal is used to describe publication platforms, like PLOS ONE, that claim to incorporate peer review processes and web technologies that allow fast review and publishing. These platforms also publish without the constraints of periodic issues and instead publish daily. We conducted a yearlong bibliometric profile of a sample of articles published in the first several months after the launch of PeerJ, a peer reviewed, open access publishing platform in the medical and biological sciences. The profile included a study of author characteristics, peer review characteristics, usage and social metrics, and a citation analysis. We found that about 43% of the articles are collaborated on by authors from different nations. Publication delay averaged 68 days, based on the median. Almost 74% of the articles were coauthored by males and females, but less than a third were first authored by females. Usage and social metrics tended to be high after publication but declined sharply over the course of a year. Citations increased as social metrics declined. Google Scholar and Scopus citation counts were highly correlated after the first year of data collection (Spearman rho = 0.86). An analysis of reference lists indicated that articles tended to include unique journal titles. The purpose of the study is not to generalize to other journals but to chart the origin of PeerJ in order to compare to future analyses of other megajournals, which may play increasingly substantial roles in science communication.
Keywords
Megajournals; Bibliometrics; Gender Differences; Peer Review; Open Access; Case Study;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Larivière, V., Ni, C., Gingras, Y, Cronin, B., & Sugimoto, C. (2013). Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science. Nature, 504(7479), 211-213.   DOI
2 Garfield, E. (1999). Journal impact factor: A brief review. CMAJ, 61(8), 979-980. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1230709.
3 Giraudoux, P. (2014). pgirmess: Data analysis in ecology. R package version 1.5.9. Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/packages=pgirmess
4 Grolemund, G., & Wickham, H. (2011). Dates and times made easy with lubridate. Journal of Statistical Software, 40(3), 1-25. Retrieved from http://www.jstatsoft.org/v40/i03
5 Grosjean, P., & Ibanez, F. (2014). pastecs: Package for analysis of space-time ecological series. R package version 1.3-18. Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=pastecs
6 Harrell, Jr., F. E. (2014). Hmisc: Harrell miscellaneous. R package version 3.14-5. Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=Hmisc
7 Lee, C. J., Sugimoto, C. R., Zhang, G., & Cronin, B. (2013). Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(1), 2-17.   DOI   ScienceOn
8 Lipworth, W., & Kerridge, I. (2011). Shifting power relations and the ethics of journal peer Review. Social Epistemology, 25(1), 97-121.   DOI   ScienceOn
9 Lloyd, M. E. (1990). Gender factors in reviewer recommendations for manuscript publication. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23(4), 539-543.   DOI
10 Luwel, M., & Moed, H. F. (1998). Publication delays in the science field and their relationship to the ageing of scientific literature. Scientometrics, 41(1-2), 29-40.   DOI   ScienceOn
11 Bornmann, L., & Marx, W. (2012). The Anna Karenina principle: A way of thinking about success in science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(10), 2037-2051.   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Bornmann, L., Wolf, M., & Daniel, H.-D. (2012). Closed versus open reviewing of journal manuscripts: How far do comments differ in language use? Scientometrics, 91(3), 843-856.   DOI
13 Calver, M., Wardell-Johnson, G., Bradley, S., & Taplin, R. (2010). What makes a journal international? A case study using conservation biology journals. Scientometrics, 85, 387-400.   DOI
14 Ewing, J. (2004). The orthodoxy of open access. Nature Focus. Retrieved from http://www.nature.com/nature/focusaccessdebate/32.html
15 Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (2011). Understanding current causes of women’s underrepresentation in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(8), 3157-3162.   DOI   ScienceOn
16 Cope, W. W., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). Signs of epistemic disruption: Transformations in the knowledge system of the academic journal. First Monday, 14(4).
17 Cronin, B., & Franks, S. (2006). Trading cultures: Resource mobilization and service rendering in the life sciences as revealed in the journal article’s paratext. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(14), 1909-1918.   DOI   ScienceOn
18 Eysenbach, G. (2006). Citation advantage of open access articles. PLOS Biology, 4(5), e157.   DOI   ScienceOn
19 Garfield, E. (1977). What is a journal? Essays of an Information Scientist: Vol. 1. 1962-1973 (pp. 6-7). Philadelphia: ISI Press. Original work published 1964.
20 Field, A., Miles, J., & Field, Z. (2012). Discovering statistics using R. Los Angeles: Sage.
21 Binmore, P. (2013). Open access megajournals: Have they changed everything? Keynote presentation presented at University of British Columbia UBC Open. Retrieved from http://creativecommons.org.nz/2013/10/open-access-egajournals-have-they-changed-everything
22 Birukou, A., Wakeling, J. R., Bartolini, C., Casati, F., Marchese, M., Mirylenka, K., Osman, N., Ragone, A., Sierra, C., & Wasser, A. (2011, December). Alternatives to peer review: Novel approaches for research evaluation. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience.
23 Björk, B., & Solomon, D. (2012). Open access versus subscription journals: A comparison of scientific impact. BMC Medicine, 10(73).
24 Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2010). How long is the peer review process for journal manuscripts? A case study on Angewandte Chemie International Edition. Chimia, 64, 72-77.   DOI
25 Björk, B., & Solomon, D. (2013). The publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed journals. Journal of Informetrics, 7(4), 914-923.   DOI   ScienceOn
26 Blackburn, J. L., & Hakel, M. D. (2006). An examination of sources of peer-review bias. Psychological Science, 17(5), 378-382.   DOI   ScienceOn
27 Bornmann, L. (2008). Scientific peer review: An analysis of the peer review process from the perspective of sociology of science theories. Human Architecture: Journal of the Sociology of Self-Knowledge, 6(2), 23-38.
28 Wickham, H., & Francois, R. (2014). dpylr: A grammar of data manipulation. R package version 0.3.0.3. Retrieved from http://CRAN-R-project.org/package=dpylr
29 Acton, R. M. (2010). scrapeR: Tools for scraping data from HTML and XML documents. R package version 0.1.6. Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=scrapeR
30 Amat, C. B. (2008). Editorial and publication delay of papers submitted to 14 selected food research journals. Influence of online posting. Scientometrics, 74(3), 379-389.   DOI
31 Petty, R. E., Fleming, M. A., & Fabrigar, L. R. (1999). The review process at PSPB: Correlates of interviewer agreement and manuscript acceptance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(2), 188-203.   DOI
32 PLOS ONE (2014). PLOS ONE Journal Information. Retrieved from http://www.plosone.org/static/information.action
33 R Core Team. (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org
34 Townend, J. (2002). Practical statistics for environmental and biological scientists. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons, LTD.
35 Revelle, W. (2014). psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research. R package version 1.4.8. Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych
36 Solomon, D. J. (2014). A survey of authors publishing in four megajournals. PeerJ, 2, e365.   DOI
37 Solomon, D. J., & Björk, B. (2012). Publication fees in open access publishing: Sources of funding and factors influencing choice of journal. Journal of the American Society of Information Science & Technology, 63(1), 97-107.
38 Wickham, H. (2007). Reshaping data with the {reshape} package. Journal of Statistical Software, 21(12), 1-20. Retrieved from http://www.jstatsoft.org/v21/i12
39 Warnes, G. R. (2013). gmodels: Various R programming tools for model fitting. R package version 2.15.4.1. Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=gmodels
40 West, J. D., Jacquet, J., King, M. M., Correll, S. J., & Bergstrom, C. T. (2013). The role of gender in scholarly authorship. PLOS ONE, 8(7): e66212.   DOI
41 Wickham, H. (2009). ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. New York: Springer.
42 McVeigh, M. E., & Mann, S. J. (2009). The Journal Impact Factor denominator: Defining citable (counted) items. Journal of the American Medical Association, 302(10), 1107-1109.   DOI   ScienceOn
43 MacCallum, C. J. (2011). Why ONE is more than 5. PLoS Biol, 9(12):e1001235+.   DOI
44 Merton, R. K. (1973a). The normative structure of science. In N. W. Storer (Ed.), The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (pp. 267-278). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
45 Opthof, T., Coronel, R., & Janse, M. J. (2000). Submissions, editorial process and impact factor 1992-2000. Cardiovascular Research, 47(2), 203-206.   DOI   ScienceOn
46 Merton, R. K. (1973b). The Matthew Effect in science. In N. W. Storer (Ed.), The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (pp. 439-459). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
47 Merton, R. K. (1973c). Institutionalized patterns of evaluation in science. In N. W. Storer (Ed.), The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (pp. 460-496). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
48 Pautasso, M., & Schafer, H. (2010). Peer review delay and selectivity in ecology journals. Scientometrics, 84(2), 307-315.   DOI
49 Neuhäuser, M. (2012). Nonparametric statistical tests: A computational approach. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.
50 Paludi, M. A., & Bauer, W. D. (1983). Goldberg revisited: What’s in an author’s name. Sex Roles, 9(3), 387-390.   DOI
51 PeerJ. (2015). Editorial criteria. Retrieved from https://peerj.com/about/editorial-criteria
52 PeerJ. (2014). FAQ. Retrieved from https://peerj.com/about/FAQ