首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>other >A survey of authors publishing in four megajournals
【2h】

A survey of authors publishing in four megajournals

机译:在四个大型期刊上发表论文的作者的调查

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

>Aim. To determine the characteristics of megajournal authors, the nature of the manuscripts they are submitting to these journals, factors influencing their decision to publish in a megajournal, sources of funding for article processing charges (APCs) or other fees and their likelihood of submitting to a megajournal in the future.>Methods. Web-based survey of 2,128 authors who recently published in BMJ Open, PeerJ, PLOS ONE or SAGE Open.>Results. The response rate ranged from 26% for BMJ Open to 47% for SAGE Open. The authors were international, largely academics who had recently published in both subscription and Open Access (OA) journals. Across journals about 25% of the articles were preliminary findings and just under half were resubmissions of manuscripts rejected by other journals. Editors from other BMJ journals and perhaps to a lesser extent SAGE and PLOS journals appear to be encouraging authors to submit manuscripts that were rejected by the editor’s journals to a megajournal published by the same publisher. Quality of the journal and speed of the review process were important factors across all four journals. Impact factor was important for PLOS ONE authors but less so for BMJ Open authors, which also has an impact factor. The review criteria and the fact the journal was OA were other significant factors particularly important for PeerJ authors. The reputation of the publisher was an important factor for SAGE Open and BMJ Open. About half of PLOS ONE and around a third of BMJ Open and PeerJ authors used grant funding for publishing charges while only about 10% of SAGE Open used grant funding for publication charges. Around 60% of SAGE Open and 32% of PeerJ authors self-funded their publication fees however the fees are modest for these journals. The majority of authors from all 4 journals were pleased with their experience and indicated they were likely to submit to the same or similar journal in the future.>Conclusions. Megajournals are drawing an international group of authors who tend to be experienced academics. They are choosing to publish in megajournals for a variety of reasons but most seem to value the quality of the journal and the speed of the review/publication process. Having a broad scope was not a key factor for most authors though being OA was important for PeerJ and SAGE Open authors. Most authors appeared pleased with the experience and indicated they are likely to submit future manuscripts to the same or similar megajournal which seems to suggest these journals will continue to grow in popularity.
机译:>目标。为了确定大型期刊作者的特征,他们向这些期刊提交的手稿的性质,影响他们在大型期刊上发表决定的因素,文章处理费(APC)或其他费用的资金来源以及他们向期刊投稿的可能性未来的大型新闻。>方法。基于Web的对2128位最近在BMJ Open,PeerJ,PLOS ONE或SAGE Open中发表的作者的调查。>结果。回应率从BMJ Open的26%到SAGE Open的47%不等。作者是国际人士,主要是学者,最近他们都在订阅和开放访问(OA)期刊上发表过文章。在各种期刊中,约有25%的文章是初步发现,而将近一半的文章被其他期刊拒绝投稿。 BMJ其他期刊以及SAGE和PLOS期刊的编辑似乎都在鼓励作者将稿件被编辑者拒绝的稿件提交给同一出版商出版的大型期刊。期刊的质量和审阅过程的速度是所有四种期刊的重要因素。影响因子对PLOS ONE的作者很重要,但对BMJ开放作者则不那么重要,这也具有影响因子。审阅标准和期刊为OA的事实对PeerJ作者而言尤其重要。出版商的声誉是SAGE Open和BMJ Open的重要因素。 PLOS ONE约有一半,BMJ Open和PeerJ约有三分之一的作者使用赠款资助出版费用,而SAGE Open的约10%则用赠款资助出版费用。大约有60%的SAGE Open和32%的PeerJ作者自负其出版费,但是对于这些期刊而言,这些费用并不多。来自这4种期刊的大多数作者对他们的经验感到满意,并表示他们将来可能会提交相同或相似的期刊。>结论。大型期刊吸引了一批国际学者,他们往往是经验丰富的学者。他们出于各种原因选择在大型期刊上发表文章,但大多数人似乎都看重期刊的质量和审阅/发表过程的速度。对于大多数作者而言,拥有广泛的范围并不是关键因素,尽管对于PeerJ和SAGE Open作者而言,开放获取很重要。大多数作者对这一经历感到满意,并表示他们很可能会在相同或相似的大型期刊上提交未来的手稿,这似乎表明这些期刊将继续流行。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号