Open Access Mega-Journals: Quality, Economics and Post-publication Peer Review Infrastructure

Silva, Jaime A. Teixeira da; Tsigaris, Panagiotis; Al-Khatib, Aceil

doi:10.1007/s12109-019-09654-8

Cited by 10 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…OA megajournals that apply a peer review policy based solely on scientific soundness have also been under scrutiny. Some authors are sceptical and believe megajournals are a publication outlet for lower quality papers that would not pass the stricter peer‐review criteria applied by more selective traditional journals (Domnina, 2016; Spezi et al, 2017; Teixeira da Silva et al, 2019). Some studies have investigated whether this ‘soundness‐only’ quality control may be linked to a higher rate of published errors.…”

Section: The Impact Of Apcs On Journal Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Article processing charges for open access journal publishing: A review

Borrego

2023

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Some open access (OA) publishers charge authors fees to make their articles freely available online. This paper reviews literature on article processing charges (APCs) that has been published since 2000. Despite praise for diamond OA journals, which charge no fees, most OA articles are published by commercial publishers that charge APCs. Publishers fix APCs depending on the reputation assigned to journals by peers. Evidence shows a relationship between high impact metrics and higher, faster rising APCs.Authors express reluctance about APCs, although this varies by discipline depending on previous experience of paying publication fees and the availability of research grants to cover them. Authors rely on a mix of research grants, library funds and personal assets to pay the charges. Two major concerns have been raised in relation to APCs: the inability of poorly funded authors to publish research and their impact on journal quality. Waivers have not solved the first issue. Research shows little extension of waiver use, unintended side effects on co-author networks and concerns regarding criteria to qualify for them. Bibliometric studies concur that journals that charge APCs have a similar citation impact to journals that rely on other income sources.

show abstract

Section: The Impact Of Apcs On Journal Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Article processing charges for open access journal publishing: A review

Borrego

2023

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…16 Questions about the quality of peer review of the large number of articles that this economic model generates, as adopted by MDPI and publishers of other mega OA journal, continue to raised and generate mixed responses from the academia. 17 In scholarly OA publishing, one concern is the potentially exploitative or excessive APCs. 18 Higher APCs imply higher earnings.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the relationship between journal indexing and article processing charges of journals published by MDPI, the Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

Okagbue¹,

Silva²,

Anake³

2020

ESE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI) is a prominent open access (OA) publisher that uses article processing charges (APCs) as its business model. Our objective was to determine the association between the APCs levied by MDPI journals and 1) their inclusion in Scopus and Web of Science databases or 2) their stature, as represented by their CiteScore (Elsevier’s Scopus) and Impact Factor (awarded by Clarivate Analytics). Among the 227 journals published by MDPI, 51 had both IF and CiteScore; 107, only a CiteScore; and 84, neither IF nor CiteScore. The charges levied by the journals varied widely, from 0 to CHF 2000 (Swiss francs), the most frequent figure (159 journals) being CHF 1000, or about €930. The amount of APCs was found to be correlated to IF (R² = 0.64; p <0.001; 107 journals) and also to CiteScore (R² = 0.619; p <0.001; 53 journals). The charges levied by journals that had both IF and CiteScore were significantly higher than those charged by journals with neither IF nor CiteScore (p <0.05). The charges were also correlated to the age of the journal: the more recently launched journals charged less than the older journals did.

show abstract

“… 19 This fact further fuels the “publish first, judge later” controversy associated with preprints 20 21 and the quality of peer review and published articles in OA journals, including OA mega journals. 22 23 24 In this regard, the distinction between predatory OA journals and legitimate (i.e., that are indexed and may carry an IF) OA journals is becoming increasingly obscured, leading to a gray zone of journals that can no longer be differentiated on ethical grounds. 25 …”

Section: Retractions Due To Manipulated or Fake Peer Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%