Quantitative portrait of open access mega-journals

IF 0.5 4区 管理学 Q3 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science Pub Date : 2019-09-22 DOI:10.22452/mjlis.vol24no2.7
Mohammadamin Erfanmanesh
{"title":"Quantitative portrait of open access mega-journals","authors":"Mohammadamin Erfanmanesh","doi":"10.22452/mjlis.vol24no2.7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Nowadays, Open Access Mega-Journals (OAMJs) represent a substantial part of the scholarly communication system. The current research is conducted with the aim of providing better insights into the increasingly important OAMJ phenomenon through investigation of eight reputable titles using established bibliometric methods. Results of the study showed that eight studied OAMJs were responsible for 1.87% of the total number of publication indexed in Web of Science during 2012-2016. Despite the decline in publication count of PLOS ONE over the past couple of years, it was the biggest journal in the world till 2017, when Scientific Reports overtook PLOS ONE as the most productive journal. Over 88% of the papers published in eight selected OAMJs were cited at-least once at the point in time of analysis. The highest proportions of cited and un-cited documents were seen in Scientific Reports and SpringerPlus, respectively. With regard to the three indicators, namely share of highly-cited papers, the category normalized citation impact as well as the JIF percentile, IEEE Access had by far the best performance among eight examined OAMJs. Results of the study revealed that Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, Multidisciplinary Sciences, Neurosciences, Oncology and Immunology were the most commonly assigned subject categories to OAMJs’ content. The National Natural Science Foundation of China was the most important funding agency that supported the publication of around 26000 articles in eight studied OAMJs. Investigation of the geographic distribution of authors showed that the United States and China by far had the highest contribution in the content of eight studied OAMJs. There were, however, notable variations between different OAMJs.","PeriodicalId":45072,"journal":{"name":"Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22452/mjlis.vol24no2.7","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Nowadays, Open Access Mega-Journals (OAMJs) represent a substantial part of the scholarly communication system. The current research is conducted with the aim of providing better insights into the increasingly important OAMJ phenomenon through investigation of eight reputable titles using established bibliometric methods. Results of the study showed that eight studied OAMJs were responsible for 1.87% of the total number of publication indexed in Web of Science during 2012-2016. Despite the decline in publication count of PLOS ONE over the past couple of years, it was the biggest journal in the world till 2017, when Scientific Reports overtook PLOS ONE as the most productive journal. Over 88% of the papers published in eight selected OAMJs were cited at-least once at the point in time of analysis. The highest proportions of cited and un-cited documents were seen in Scientific Reports and SpringerPlus, respectively. With regard to the three indicators, namely share of highly-cited papers, the category normalized citation impact as well as the JIF percentile, IEEE Access had by far the best performance among eight examined OAMJs. Results of the study revealed that Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, Multidisciplinary Sciences, Neurosciences, Oncology and Immunology were the most commonly assigned subject categories to OAMJs’ content. The National Natural Science Foundation of China was the most important funding agency that supported the publication of around 26000 articles in eight studied OAMJs. Investigation of the geographic distribution of authors showed that the United States and China by far had the highest contribution in the content of eight studied OAMJs. There were, however, notable variations between different OAMJs.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
开放获取大型期刊的定量描述
如今,开放获取大型期刊(OAMJs)代表了学术交流系统的重要组成部分。目前的研究是为了更好地了解日益重要的OAMJ现象,通过使用既定的文献计量学方法调查八个著名的标题。研究结果表明,2012-2016年,8篇oamj收录的论文占Web of Science收录论文总数的1.87%。尽管在过去的几年里,PLOS ONE的出版数量有所下降,但在2017年之前,它一直是世界上最大的期刊,当时《科学报告》取代PLOS ONE成为最多产的期刊。在8个选定的oamj中发表的论文中,超过88%的论文在分析时至少被引用一次。被引文献和未被引文献的比例最高的分别是Scientific Reports和SpringerPlus。在高被引论文比例、类别标准化引用影响和JIF百分位数这三个指标上,IEEE Access在8个被调查的oamj中表现最好。研究结果显示,生物化学与分子生物学、多学科科学、神经科学、肿瘤学和免疫学是OAMJs内容中最常见的学科类别。中国国家自然科学基金是最重要的资助机构,在8个研究的oamj中支持了约26000篇文章的发表。对作者地理分布的调查表明,到目前为止,美国和中国在所研究的8个oamj的内容中贡献最大。然而,不同oamj之间存在显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science
Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
7.70%
发文量
8
期刊最新文献
A study on the election factors of ACM Fellow based on the co-authorship relationship Compromising quality parameters lead to fallout: a study of de-indexing of research journals Teaching strategies for library instruction: directions from the literature Strategies for building institutional repositories a case study of content recruitment in Malaysian higher learning institutions Exploring authors engagement in journals with questionable practices: a case study of OMICS
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1