The North American phyllopods of the genus Streptocephalus

http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/56656/1/OP217.pd

Three new crayfishes (Cambarus) from Puebla and Missouri

http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/56663/1/OP224.pd

Description of some new and poorly known species of North American crayfishes

http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/56714/1/OP275.pd

A new blind isopod of the genus Caecidotea, from a Missouri cave

http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/56661/1/OP222.pd

Revision of the phyllopod genus Eubranchipus, with the description of a new species

http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/56647/1/OP208.pd

A faunistic area of five isolated species of crayfish in southeastern Missouri

http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/56717/1/OP278.pd

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

Open access megajournals: The publisher perspective (Part 2: Operational realities)

This paper is the second of two Learned Publishing articles in which we report the results of a series of interviews, with senior publishers and editors exploring open access megajournals (OAMJs). Megajournals (of which PLoS One is the best known example) represent a relatively new approach to scholarly communication and can be characterized as large, broad-scope, open access journals, which take an innovative approach to peer review, basing acceptance decisions solely on the technical or scientific soundness of the article. Based on interviews with 31 publishers and editors, this paper reports the perceived cultural, operational, and technical challenges associated with launching, growing, and maintaining a megajournal. We find that overcoming these challenges while delivering the societal benefits associated with OAMJs is seen to require significant investment in people and systems, as well as an ongoing commitment to the model

Open access megajournals: The publisher perspective (Part 1: Motivations)

This paper is the first of two Learned Publishing articles in which we report the results of a series of interviews with senior publishers and editors exploring open access megajournals (OAMJs). Megajournals (of which PLoS One is the best known example) represent a relatively new approach to scholarly communication and can be characterized as large, broad-scope, open access journals that take an innovative approach to peer review, basing acceptance decisions solely on the technical or scientific soundness of the article. This model is often said to support the broader goals of the open science movement. Based on in-depth interviews with 31 publishers and editors representing 16 different organizations (10 of which publish a megajournal), this paper reports how the term ‘megajournal’ is understood and publishers’ rationale and motivations for launching (or not launching) an OAMJ. We find that while there is general agreement on the common characteristics of megajournals, there is not yet a consensus on their relative importance. We also find seven motivating factors that were said to drive the launch of an OAMJ and link each of these factors to potential societal and business benefits. These results suggest that the often polarized debate surrounding OAMJs is a consequence of the extent to which observers perceive publishers to be motivated by these societal or business benefits

“Let the community decide”? The vision and reality of soundness-only peer review in open-access mega-journals

Purpose: The aim of this research is to better understand the theory and practice of peer review in open-access mega-journals (OAMJs). Mega-journals typically operate a “soundness only” review policy aiming to evaluate only the rigour of an article, not the novelty or significance of the research or its relevance to a particular community, with these elements being left for “the community to decide” post-publication. Design/methodology/approach: The paper reports the results of interviews with 31 senior publishers and editors representing 16 different organisations, including 10 that publish an OAMJ. Thematic Analysis was carried out on the data and an analytical model developed to explicate their significance. Findings: Findings suggest that in reality criteria beyond technical or scientific soundness can and do influence editorial decisions. Deviations from the original OAMJ model are both publisher-supported (in the form of requirements for an article to be ‘worthy’ of publication) and practice-driven (in the form of some reviewers and editors applying traditional peer review criteria to mega-journal submissions). Also publishers believe post-publication evaluation of novelty, significance, and relevance remains problematic. Originality/value: The study is based on unprecedented access to senior publishers and editors, allowing insight into their strategic and operational priorities. The paper is the first to report in-depth qualitative data relating specifically to soundness-only peer review for OAMJs, shedding new light on the mega-journal phenomenon, and helping inform discussion on its future role in scholarly communication. The paper proposes a new model for understanding the mega-journal approach to quality assurance, and how it is different from traditional peer review