Budapest Open Access Initiative      

Budapest Open Access Initiative: BOAI Forum Archive

[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]

boaiforum messages

[BOAI] Survey of megajournals

From: David Solomon <dsolomon AT msu.edu>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 05:34:51 -0400


--047d7bf10a1ce8eb2604f79e5373
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Apologies for cross postings. You may be interested in this survey of the
authors publishing in four megajournals.


*A survey of authors publishing in four megajournals*

*Abstract*

*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=E2=80=99s 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.

*The article is available here*

https://peerj.com/articles/365/

--=20
David J Solomon, PhD
A-202 E Fee Hall
965 Fee Road
MSU
E. Lansing, MI 48823 USA
+1 517 353-2037 Ext 223
dsolomon AT msu.edu

--047d7bf10a1ce8eb2604f79e5373
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Apologies for cross postings. You may be 
interested in thi=
s survey of the authors publishing in four 
megajournals.<div><br></div><div=
><b>A survey of authors publishing in four 
megajournals<br></b><div><b><br>
</b></div><div><b>Abstract</b><div>=C2=A0</div><div><b>Aim</b>. To determin=
e 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 char=
ges (APCs) or other fees and their likelihood of submitting to a megajourna=
l in the future.</div>
<div><br></div><div><b>Methods</b>. 
Web-based survey of 2,128 authors who r=
ecently published in BMJ Open, PeerJ, PLOS ONE or SAGE 
Open.</div><div><br>=
</div><div><b>Results</b>. The response rate ranged 
from 26% for BMJ Open t=
o 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 jus=
t under half were resubmissions of manuscripts rejected by other journals. =
Editors from other BMJ journals and perhaps to a lesser extent SAGE and PLO=
S journals appear to be encouraging authors to submit manuscripts that were=
 rejected by the editor=E2=80=99s journals to a megajournal published by th=
e same publisher. Quality of the journal and speed of the review process we=
re 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 im=
pact factor. The review criteria and the fact the journal was OA were other=
 significant factors particularly important for PeerJ authors. The reputati=
on of the publisher was an important factor for SAGE Open and BMJ Open. Abo=
ut half of PLOS ONE and around a third of BMJ Open and PeerJ authors used g=
rant 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 P=
eerJ authors self-funded their publication fees however the fees are modest=
 for these journals. The majority of authors from all 4 journals were pleas=
ed with their experience and indicated they were likely to submit to the sa=
me or similar journal in the future.</div>
<div><br></div><div><b>Conclusions</b>. 
Megajournals are drawing an interna=
tional group of authors who tend to be experienced academics. They are choo=
sing to publish in megajournals for a variety of reasons but most seem to v=
alue the quality of the journal and the speed of the review/publication pro=
cess. Having a broad scope was not a key factor for most authors though bei=
ng 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.</div>
<div><br></div><div><b>The article is available 
here</b></div><div><br></di=
v><div><a 
href=3D"https://peerj.com/articles/365/">https://peerj.com/articl=
es/365/</a><br></div><div><br></div>-- 
<br>David J Solomon, PhD<br>A-202 E =
Fee Hall<div>
<span>965 Fee Road</span>=C2=A0<br>MSU<br>E. Lansing, 
MI 48823 USA<br>+1 51=
7 353-2037 Ext 223<br><a href=3D"mailto:dsolomon AT msu.edu" 
target=3D"_blank"=
>dsolomon AT msu.edu</a></div>
</div></div></div>

--047d7bf10a1ce8eb2604f79e5373--

        
--      
To unsubscribe from the BOAI Forum, use the form on this page:
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/boai-forum

[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]

 E-mail:  openaccess@soros.org .