Making Open Access work

Pinfield, Stephen

doi:10.1108/oir-05-2015-0167

Cited by 48 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 141 publications

(151 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Björk and Hedlund (2015) observe that not even the introduction of the web has had a profound impact on the way peer review is conducted for most journals. Even with its shortcomings, conventional peer review is commonly regarded as the best system available and any change to it is often regarded with caution and suspicion (Pinfield, 2015).…”

Section: Research Context 21 Attitudes To Peer Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Spezi

Wakeling

Pinfield

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to better understand the theory and practice of peer review in open-access mega-journals (OAMJs). OAMJs 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 OAMJ 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 OAMJ phenomenon and helping inform discussion on its future role in scholarly communication. The paper proposes a new model for understanding the OAMJ approach to quality assurance, and how it is different from traditional peer review.

show abstract

Section: Research Context 21 Attitudes To Peer Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Spezi

Wakeling

Pinfield

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While there are certainly challenges to open access, there are signs that the consensus favors open data and accessibility in scholarly work to improve literacy (Pinfield, 2015). For example, at this time, any peer-reviewed manuscript funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) must be made open to the public within 12 months.…”

Section: The Added Challenge Of Open Access To Literacymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Intersection of Information and Science Literacy

Klucevsek¹

2017

Comminfolit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To achieve higher science literacy, both students and the public require discipline-specific information literacy in the sciences. Scientific information literacy is a core component of the scientific process. In addition to teaching how to find and evaluate resources, scientific information literacy should include teaching the process of scholarship as a conversation and publication in the sciences. Faculty and librarians can be challenged in their efforts to teach students because of limited access to published research. Stronger scientific information literacy and more access to scholarly research could improve science literacy as a whole.

show abstract

“…Since peer review is often seen as foundational to scholarly communication, any changes to it are often regarded with suspicion (Pinfield, 2015). Soundness-based peer review has certainly been criticised as representing a decline in quality standards, labelled, for example, as "light peer review" (Butler, 2008;Davis, 2008;Buriak, 2015).…”

Section: Peer Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Open-access mega-journals

Spezi

Wakeling

Pinfield

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Open-access mega-journals (OAMJs) represent an increasingly important part of the scholarly communication landscape. OAMJs, such as PLOS ONE, are large scale, broad scope journals that operate an open access business model (normally based on article-processing charges), and which employ a novel form of peer review, focussing on scientific “soundness” and eschewing judgement of novelty or importance. The purpose of this paper is to examine the discourses relating to OAMJs, and their place within scholarly publishing, and considers attitudes towards mega-journals within the academic community. Design/methodology/approach This paper presents a review of the literature of OAMJs structured around four defining characteristics: scale, disciplinary scope, peer review policy, and economic model. The existing scholarly literature was augmented by searches of more informal outputs, such as blogs and e-mail discussion lists, to capture the debate in its entirety. Findings While the academic literature relating specifically to OAMJs is relatively sparse, discussion in other fora is detailed and animated, with debates ranging from the sustainability and ethics of the mega-journal model, to the impact of soundness-only peer review on article quality and discoverability, and the potential for OAMJs to represent a paradigm-shifting development in scholarly publishing. Originality/value This paper represents the first comprehensive review of the mega-journal phenomenon, drawing not only on the published academic literature, but also grey, professional and informal sources. The paper advances a number of ways in which the role of OAMJs in the scholarly communication environment can be conceptualised.

show abstract

Making Open Access work

Cited by 48 publications

References 141 publications

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

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

The Intersection of Information and Science Literacy

Open-access mega-journals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About