Open-access mega-journals: A bibliometric profile

In this paper we present the first comprehensive bibliometric analysis of eleven open-access mega-journals (OAMJs). OAMJs are a relatively recent phenomenon, and have been characterised as having four key characteristics: large size; broad disciplinary scope; a GoldOA business model; and a peer-review policy that seeks to determine only the scientific soundness of the research rather than evaluate the novelty or significance of the work. Our investigation focuses on four key modes of analysis: journal outputs (the number of articles published and changes in output over time); OAMJ author characteristics (nationalities and institutional affiliations); subject areas (the disciplinary scope of OAMJs, and variations in sub-disciplinary output); and citation profiles (the citation distributions of each OAMJ, and the impact of citing journals). We found that while the total output of the eleven megajournals grew by 14.9% between 2014 and 2015, this growth is largely attributable to the increased output of Scientific Reports and Medicine. We also found substantial variation in the geographical distribution of authors. Several journals have a relatively high proportion of Chinese authors, and we suggest this may be linked to these journals’ high Journal Impact Factors (JIFs). The mega-journals were also found to vary in subject scope, with several journals publishing disproportionately high numbers of articles in certain sub-disciplines. Our citation analsysis offers support for Björk & Catani’s suggestion that OAMJs’s citation distributions can be similar to those of traditional journals, while noting considerable variation in citation rates across the eleven titles. We conclude that while the OAMJ term is useful as a means of grouping journals which share a set of key characteristics, there is no such thing as a “typical” mega-journal, and we suggest several areas for additional research that might help us better understand the current and future role of OAMJs in scholarly communication

Improving perceptions of value to teaching and research staff: The next challenge for academic libraries

This is the accepted version of an article subsequently published in the Journal of Librarianship and Information Science [SAGE Publications / © The Author(s)]. The definitive version is available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0961000613477678This article investigates the value, and perceptions of value, of academic libraries to teaching and research staff by examining working relationships between libraries and academic departments in universities. Eight case studies were undertaken in the US, the UK and Scandinavia. Primary findings were analysed and triangulated with a series of short surveys to ascertain whether they resonated with other librarians’ experiences. The article offers examples of good practice in the area of partnership building for academic libraries to improve their value to, or perceptions of value by, teaching and research staff, as well as raise their profile and better market their services to this category of users. Those examples may be of interest to fellow library practitioners and researchers interested in exploring further library-faculty interaction and collaboration

PEER D4.2 Behavioural Research: Authors and Users vis-à-vis Journals and Repositories - Final Report

The Behavioural research project is one of three independent research projects commissioned and managed by PEER as part of the PEER Observatory. The aim of the Behavioural research project was to address the role of stage-two manuscript repositories in the scholarly and scientific communication system by exploring perceptions, motivations and behaviours of authors and readers. The research was carried out between April 2009 and August 2011 by the Department of Information Science and LISU at Loughborough University, UK

PEER D4.1 Behavioural Research: Authors and Users vis-à-vis Journals and Repositories - Baseline report

The Behavioural research: Authors and users vis-à-vis journals and repositories project was commissioned by PEER in April 2009 as part of a broader initiative to investigate the effects of the large-scale, systematic deposit of authors' final peer-reviewed manuscripts (also called stage-two research outputs) on reader access, author visibility, and journal viability, as well as on the broader ecology of European research. The specific aim of the behavioural research is to understand the extent to which authors and users are aware of open access (OA), the different ways of achieving it, and the (de)motivating factors that influence its uptake

Cumulative Citation Distributions for two medical OAMJs, plus selected comparison journals based on articles published in 2013 (curves have been smoothed).

<p>Cumulative Citation Distributions for two medical OAMJs, plus selected comparison journals based on articles published in 2013 (curves have been smoothed).</p

<i>BMJ Open</i> citation data compared to selected other medical journals.

<p><i>BMJ Open</i> citation data compared to selected other medical journals.</p

OAMJ Output in 2015, and % change from 2014.

<p>OAMJ Output in 2015, and % change from 2014.</p

Cumulative citation distributions for <i>PLOS ONE</i> and <i>Scientific Reports</i> by year based on citations published before the end of the next calendar year (curves have been smoothed).

<p>Cumulative citation distributions for <i>PLOS ONE</i> and <i>Scientific Reports</i> by year based on citations published before the end of the next calendar year (curves have been smoothed).</p

<i>Medicine</i>’s most frequent contributing author institutions for 2011–13, and their June 2014-December 2015 publications.

<p><i>Medicine</i>’s most frequent contributing author institutions for 2011–13, and their June 2014-December 2015 publications.</p

% of <i>PLOS ONE</i> articles indexed by top level subject areas.

<p>% of <i>PLOS ONE</i> articles indexed by top level subject areas.</p