4 research outputs found
Transitioning from a Conventional to a ‘Mega’ Journal: A Bibliometric Case Study of the Journal Medicine
Open-Access Mega-Journals (OAMJs) are a relatively new and increasingly important
publishing phenomenon. The journal Medicine is in the unique position of having transitioned in
2014 from being a ‘traditional’ highly-selective journal to the OAMJ model. This study compares
the bibliometric profile of the journal Medicine before and after its transition to the OAMJ model.
Three standard modes of bibliometric analysis are employed, based on data from Web of Science:
journal output volume, author characteristics, and citation analysis. The journal’s article output is
seen to have grown hugely since its conversion to an OAMJ, a rise driven in large part by authors
from China. Articles published since 2015 have fewer citations, and are cited by lower impact
journals than articles published before the OAMJ transition. The adoption of the OAMJ model has
completely changed the bibliometric profile of the journal, raising questions about the impact of
OAMJ peer-review practices. In many respects, the post-2014 version of Medicine is best viewed as a
new journal rather than a continuation of the original title
Retraction: the “other face” of research collaboration?
The last two decades have witnessed the rising prevalence of both co-publishing and retraction. Focusing on research collaboration, this paper utilizes a unique dataset to investigate factors contributing to retraction probability and elapsed time between publication and retraction. Data analysis reveals that the majority of retracted papers are multi-authored and that repeat offenders are collaboration prone. Yet, all things being equal, collaboration, in and of itself, does not increase the likelihood of producing flawed or fraudulent research, at least in the form of retraction. That holds for all retractions and also retractions due to falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism (FFP). The research also finds that publications with authors from elite universities are less likely to be retracted, which is particularly true for retractions due to FFP. China stands out with the fastest retracting speed compared to other countries. Possible explanations, limitations, and policy implications are also discussed