Academic communities: The role of journals and open-access mega-journals in scholarly communication

The purpose of this paper is to provide insights into publication practices from the perspective of academics working within four disciplinary communities: biosciences, astronomy/physics, education and history. The paper explores the ways in which these multiple overlapping communities intersect with the journal landscape and the implications for the adoption and use of new players in the scholarly communication system, particularly open-access mega-journals (OAMJs). OAMJs (e.g. PLOS ONE and Scientific Reports) are large, broad scope, open-access journals that base editorial decisions solely on the technical/scientific soundness of the article. Design/methodology/approach: focus groups with active researchers in these fields were held in five UK Higher Education Institutions across Great Britain, and were complemented by interviews with pro-vice-chancellors for research at each institution.  Findings: а strong finding to emerge from the data is the notion of researchers belonging to multiple overlapping communities, with some inherent tensions in meeting the requirements for these different audiences. Researcher perceptions of evaluation mechanisms were found to play a major role in attitudes towards OAMJs, and interviews with the pro-vice-chancellors for research indicate that there is a difference between researchers’ perceptions and the values embedded in institutional frameworks.  Originality/value: This is the first purely qualitative study relating to researcher perspectives on OAMJs. The findings of the paper will be of interest to publishers, policy-makers, research managers and academics.  

1. Cope B. and Phillips A. (Eds.) The future of the academic journal. 2nd ed. Oxford, Chandos Publ., 2014. 478 p.

2. Ware M., Mabe, M. The STM report: an overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing. Hague, 2015. 180 p.

3. Wilsdon J., Allen L., Belfiore E., Campbell P., Curry S., Hill S., Johnson B. Metric tide: report of the in-dependent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management. Bristol, HEFCE, 2015. 163 p.

4. Sivertsen G. Unique, but still best practice? The research excellence framework (REF) from an international perspective. Palgrave Communications, 2017, 3, e17078, 1–6. DOI: 10.1057/palcomms.2017.78.

5. Björk B.-C. Have the ‘mega-journals’ reached the limits to growth? Peer Journal, 2015, 3, 1–11. DOI 10.7717/peerj.981.

6. Wakeling S., Spezi V., Creaser C., Fry J., Pinfield S., Willett P. Open access megajournals: the publisher perspective. Pt. 2: Operational realities. Learned Publishing, 2017, 30 (4), 313–322. DOI: 10.1002/leap.1118.

7. Patterson M. PLoS journals – measuring impact where it matters. Official PLOS Blog. 2009. URL: http:// blogs.plos.org/plos/2009/07/plos-journals-measuring-impact-where-it-matters/ (accessed 20.04.2017).

8. Spezi V., Wakeling S., Pinfield S., Creaser C., Fry J., Willett P. Open-access mega-journals: the future of scholarly communication or academic dumping ground? A review. Journal of Documentation, 2017, 73 (2), 263–283. DOI: 10.1108/JD-06-2016-0082.

9. Anderson K. PLoS’ squandered opportunity – their problems with the path of least resistance. Scholarly Kitchen Blog, 2010. URL: http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2010/04/27/plos-squandered-opportunity-the-problem-with-pursuing-the-path-of-least-resistance/ (accessed 27.01.2016).

10. Wakeling S. [et al.] Open-access mega-journals: a bibliometric profile. PLOS one, 2016, 11 (11), 1–26. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0165359.

11. Solomon D. J. A survey of authors publishing in four mega-journals. Peer Journal, 2014, 2, 1–15. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.365.

12. Fry J., Probets S., Creaser C., Greenwood H., Spezi V., White S. PEER behavioural research baseline: authors and users vis-à-vis journals and repositories: report. 2009. URL: www.peerproject.eu/fileadmin/media/reports/Final_revision_-_behavioural_baseline_report_-_20_01_10.pdf (accessed 17.11.2017).

13. Nicholas D., Williams P., Rowlands I., Jamali H. R. Researchers’ e-journal use and information seeking behav¬ior. Journal of Information Science, 2010, 36 (4), 494–516. DOI: 10.1177/0165551510371883.

14. Researchers’ use of academic libraries and their services. A report of the Research Information Network and the Consortium of Research Libraries. London, 2007. 70 p.

15. Tenopir C., Dalton E., Smith M. What motivates authors of scholarly articles? The importance of journal attributes and potential audience on publication choice. Publications, 2016, 4 (3), 1–22. DOI: 10.3390/publications4030022.

16. Trowler P. Academic tribes and territories: the theoretical trajectory. Österreichische Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaften, 2014, 25 (3), 17–26.

17. Harley D., Acord S. K., Earl-Novell S., Lawrence S., King C. J. Assessing the future landscape of scholarly communication: an exploration of faculty values and needs in seven disciplines. Center for Studies in Higher Education, Berkeley, 2010. URL: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/15x7385g#page-11 (accessed 12.09.2017).

18. Nicholas D., Watkinson A., BoukacemZeghmouri C., Rodrí-guez-Bravo B., Xu J., Abrizah A., Świgoń M., Herman E. Early career researchers: scholarly behaviour and the prospect of change. Learned Publishing, 2017, 30 (2), 157–166. DOI: wiley.com/10.1002/leap.1098.

19. Garfield E. Citation indexing: its theory and ap¬plication in science, technology, and humanities. New York, Wiley, 1979. 274 р.

20. Rijcke S. D., Wouters P. F., Rushforth A. D., Franssen T. P., Hammarfelt B. Evaluation practices and effects of indicator use – a literature review. Research Evaluation, 2016, 25 (2), 161–169. DOI: 10.1093/reseval/rvv038.

21. Hicks D., Wouters P., Waltman L., De Rijcke S., Rafols I. Bibliometrics: the Leiden Manifesto for re-search metrics. Nature, 2015, 520 (7548), 429–431. DOI: 10.1038/520429a.

22. Müller R., De Rijcke S. Exploring the epistemic impacts of academic performance indicators in the life sciences. Research Evaluation, 2017, 26 (3), 157–168. DOI: 10.1093/reseval/rvx023.

23. Nicholas D., Watkinson A., Volentine R., Allard S., Levine K., Tenopir C., Herman E. Trust and authority in scholarly communications in the light of the digital transition: setting the scene for a ma-jor study. Learned Publishing, 2014, 27 (2), 121–134. DOI: 10.1087/20140206.

24. Housewright R., Schonfeld R. C., Wulfson K. UK survey of academics 2012. RLUK: research libraries UK. 2013. URL: www.rluk.ac.uk/ (accessed 18.07.2017).

25. Abbott A. D. Chaos of disciplines. Chicago, Univ. of Chicago Press, 2001. 248 p.

26. Becher T., Trowler P. Academic tribes and territories: intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines. Buckingham, Open Univ. Press, 2001. 239 p.

27. Whitley R. The intellectual and social organization of the sciences. Oxford, Oxford Univ. Press, 2000. 319 p.

28. Berkenkotter C., Huckin, T. N. Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: cognition/culture/power. Mahwah, L. Erlbaum Assoc., 1995. 190 p.

29. Tönnies F. Community and society. New York, Harper & Row, 1957. 266 p.

30. Cohen A. P. The symbolic construction of community. London, E. Horwood & Tavistock Publ., 1985. 128 p.

31. Swales J. M. Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1990. 260 p.

32. Swales J. M. Other floors, other voices: a textography of a small university building. Mahwah, L. Erlbaum Assoc., 1998. 230 p.

33. Harrison T., Stephen T. D. The electronic journal as the heart of an online scholarly community. Library Trends, 1995, 43 (4), 592–608.

34. Hjørland B., Albrechtsen H. Toward a new ho¬rizon in information science: domain-analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 1995, 46 (6), 400–425.

35. Crane D. Invisible colleges: diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities. Chicago, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1972. 213 p.

36. Fry J., Oppenheim C., Creaser C., Johnson W., Summers M., White S., Butters G., Craven J., Griffiths J., Hartley D. Communicating knowledge: how and why UK researchers publish and disseminate their findings. London, Research Inform. Network, 2009. 55 p.

37. Braun V., Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2006, 3 (2), 77–101. DOI: abs/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.

38. Saldaña J. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. London, SAGE Publ., 2013. 303 p.