Academic publishing is getting more varied. A recent article in JAMA focuses on the rise of 'mega-journals,' which seek to publish papers that are correct, without filtering for (referees' opinions about) novelty or importance.
The Rapid Growth of Mega-Journals: Threats and Opportunities by John P. A. Ioannidis, MD, DSc1,2; Angelo Maria Pezzullo, MD, MSc3; Stefania Boccia, MSc, DSc, PhD3,4, JAMA. Published online March 20, 2023. doi:10.1001/jama.2023.3212
"Mega-journals, those that publish large numbers of articles per year,1 are growing rapidly across science and especially in biomedicine. Although 11 Scopus-indexed journals published more than 2000 biomedical full papers (articles or reviews) in 2015 and accounted for 6% of that year’s literature, in 2022 there were 55 journals publishing more than 2000 full articles, totaling more than 300 000 articles (almost a quarter of the biomedical literature that year). In 2015, 2 biomedical research journals (PLoS One and Scientific Reports) published more than 3500 full articles. In 2022, there were 26 such prolific journals (Table). The accelerating growth of mega-journals creates both threats and opportunities for biomedical science.
...
"we define mega-journals as open-access peer-reviewed journals that charge article processing fees and publish more than 2000 full articles in a calendar year. The 2 early-launched mega-journals, PLoS One and Scientific Reports, were also characterized by very broad publishing scope, covering scientific topics in general.
...
"Mega-journals typically claim to publish articles based on whether they are scientifically sound rather than important and novel. Accordingly, their acceptance rates, when disclosed, are 20% to 70%
...
"It would be unfair, nevertheless, to dismiss mega-journals as simply a negative development. Several of their characteristics could be aligned also with desirable scientific practices. First, open access is a good starting point, and it can be coupled with greater transparency. If these journals routinely adopt transparent research practices, such as sharing of data, code, protocols, and statistical analysis plans, they can have a transformative effect, given their large output. Several older, broad-scope mega-journals (eg, PLoS One, Royal Society Open Science) have already championed such efforts. It is crucial that disciplinary-focused mega-journals do the same. Second, publishing technically sound scientific work regardless of the nature of the results is highly commendable. It offers opportunities to curb publication and selective reporting bias. Empirical studies are needed to investigate whether mega-journals do achieve this goal or still have selective reporting biases and variants thereof (eg, “spin”). Third, mega-journals may allow publication of results deemed undesirable in traditional specialty journals with entrenched, inbred publishing practices. Enhanced diversity of perspectives and opportunities to challenge orthodoxy are welcome, provided the journals publish rigorous data and safeguard against conflicts of interest. Securing editorial independence and maximizing transparency about conflicts for editors, reviewers, and authors will be key in reaping such benefits.
...
"At the publisher level, competition may have major indirect effects on medicine and science at large. Scientific publishing has an annual work cycle exceeding $30 billion and very large profit margins, which are possible in part because approximately 100 million hours of peer reviewers’ time is offered free yearly.8 The publishers behind the new generation of specialized mega-journals (Table) are taking this money-making recipe to new heights. Science and scientists may feel thwarted, if not entirely powerless, while big publishing corporations fight for field domination. However, it would be to the benefit of all if scientists, medical and research institutions, and funders gave credit to and rewarded journals (and publishers) that promote more transparent research and more rigorous research practices."
Posts
