Hubbry Logo
logo
Mega journal avatar
Mega journal
Community hub

Mega journal

logo
0 subscribers
Read side by side
Mega journal
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

A mega journal (also mega-journal and megajournal) is a peer-reviewed academic open access journal designed to be much larger than a traditional journal by exercising low selectivity among accepted articles. It was pioneered by PLOS ONE.[1][2] This "very lucrative publishing model"[2] was soon emulated by other publishers.

Definition

[edit]

A mega journal has the following defining characteristics:

Other less universal characteristics are

  • "an accelerated review and publication process",[2] "fast turnaround time";[6]
  • "academic editors",[6] even "a large editorial board of academic editors",[5] (instead of professional editors); and
  • value-added services such as reusable graphics and data through Creative Commons licenses.[7]

Mega journals are also online-only, with no printed version, and are fully open access, in contrast to hybrid open access journals.[7] Some "predatory" open access publishers use the mega journal model.[1]

Influence

[edit]

It has been suggested that the academic journal landscape might become dominated by a few mega journals in the future, at least in terms of total number of articles published.[8] Mega journals shift the publishing industry's funding standard from the subscription-based model common to traditional closed access publications to article processing charges.[9] Their business model may not motivate reviewers, who donate their time to "influence their field, gain exposure to the most current cutting edge research or list their service to a prestigious journal on their CVs."[10] Finally, they may no longer serve as "fora for the exchange ... among colleagues in a particular field or sub-field", as traditionally happened in scholarly journals.[11] To counter that indiscrimination, PLOS ONE, the prototypical megajournal, has started to "package relevant articles into subject-specific collections."[12]

List of mega journals

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Mega journal

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A mega journal is a peer-reviewed, open access academic journal that publishes a high volume of articles across a broad range of disciplines, employing a peer-review process focused solely on the scientific soundness, validity, and ethical integrity of the research rather than its novelty, significance, or potential impact.[1] These journals typically operate on an article processing charge (APC) model, where authors pay fees—often ranging from $2,000 to $3,000 per article—to cover publication costs, ensuring free public access to the content.[1][2] The mega journal model emerged in the mid-2000s as part of the broader open access movement, with PLOS ONE, launched in December 2006 by the Public Library of Science (PLOS), serving as the pioneering example that popularized the format.[1] Other early entrants included Scientific Reports (launched in 2011 by Nature Publishing Group) and BMJ Open (2011 by BMJ), followed by PeerJ in 2013, all emphasizing inclusive publishing of technically sound research without traditional selectivity based on perceived importance.[1] This approach aimed to address criticisms of conventional journals, which often reject valid but less groundbreaking work, thereby broadening access to scientific dissemination.[3] Mega journals have experienced rapid expansion, particularly in biomedicine and the natural sciences, with the number of such journals publishing more than 2,000 articles annually rising from 11 in 2015 (accounting for about 6% of the biomedical literature) to 55 in 2022 (nearly 25%, or over 300,000 articles).[3] Acceptance rates typically range from 50% to 70%, and publication timelines average 3 to 5 months, enabling faster dissemination compared to many traditional journals.[1] While this growth has democratized publishing and increased the visibility of diverse research, it has also raised concerns about information overload, citation dilution in impact metrics, and the need for robust quality controls to distinguish legitimate mega journals from predatory outlets.[3]

Introduction and Definition

Definition and Core Characteristics

A mega journal is a peer-reviewed, open access academic journal characterized by its large scale and low selectivity, prioritizing the scientific validity or "soundness" of submissions over criteria such as novelty, impact, or perceived interest, which results in high acceptance rates typically ranging from 50% to 70%.[1] This approach allows for the publication of a broad array of valid research findings, regardless of their potential influence, fostering a model where the first example, PLOS ONE, launched in 2006 to exemplify this paradigm. Unlike traditional journals that curate content based on subjective editorial judgments of significance, mega journals aim to minimize bias in pre-publication filtering by focusing editorial decisions solely on technical rigor and methodological integrity.[1] Universal characteristics of mega journals include their online-only format, which enables continuous, issueless publishing without print constraints; a broad disciplinary scope encompassing multiple fields, often spanning science, technology, medicine, and beyond; reliance on article processing charges (APCs) as the primary revenue source to support open access dissemination; and minimal editorial intervention limited to verifying scientific soundness rather than broader assessments.[1] These journals are designed for high volume, with some publishing tens of thousands of articles annually, leveraging digital infrastructure to handle scale efficiently. While not universal, common traits among mega journals include expedited publication timelines, often achieving acceptance within 2-3 months from submission, to meet researcher demands for rapid dissemination; the use of crowdsourced or open peer review processes in select cases, where community input supplements traditional refereeing; and features for post-publication commentary, such as public review threads or article-level metrics, to encourage ongoing discourse and evaluation.[4] For instance, platforms like F1000Research incorporate transparent, post-publication open peer review to invite diverse expert feedback after initial online availability.[5] Legitimate mega journals distinguish themselves from predatory publications through adherence to established standards, including inclusion in directories like the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), rigorous soundness-based peer review conducted by qualified experts, and affiliation with reputable publishers, despite superficial similarities in high-volume open access models and APC structures.[1] This commitment to transparency and quality ensures they contribute meaningfully to scholarly communication without compromising integrity.

Historical Origins and Evolution

The mega journal model originated in the mid-2000s amid the burgeoning open access movement, which sought to democratize scientific publishing by removing paywalls and emphasizing accessibility over traditional prestige metrics. PLOS ONE launched in December 2006 as the pioneering example, introducing a validity-based peer review system that prioritized scientific soundness rather than perceived novelty or impact; it published 138 articles in its inaugural year.[6] This innovation addressed longstanding frustrations with conventional journals, where rejection rates often exceeded 80% due to subjective assessments of importance, leading researchers to advocate for broader dissemination of rigorous work.[7] The model's evolution accelerated in the late 2000s and 2010s, fueled by institutional mandates and technological advancements in electronic publishing. A pivotal driver was the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) Public Access Policy, implemented in April 2008, which required peer-reviewed manuscripts from NIH-funded research to be deposited in PubMed Central within 12 months of publication, thereby incentivizing open access outlets like mega journals.[8] Subsequent launches included Nature Publishing Group's Scientific Reports in June 2011, which quickly scaled to become a high-volume outlet, and PeerJ in February 2013, which offered affordable lifetime membership options to authors.[9][10] By 2017, the number of identified mega journals had grown to 19, with collective annual output rising from 7,207 articles in 2010 to 58,007, reflecting rapid adoption particularly among authors from China, who contributed about 25% of submissions by that point.[6] Post-2020 developments marked a maturation phase, with mega journals integrating into mainstream publishing amid surging global research demands. The COVID-19 pandemic intensified open access needs, as rapid sharing of findings became critical, leading to heightened submissions and underscoring the model's scalability for timely dissemination. By 2022, mega journals accounted for approximately 300,000 articles annually—about a quarter of biomedical literature—demonstrating their shift from niche experiment to established paradigm, though growth rates began to moderate due to market saturation.[11] As of 2024, output continued to grow for major titles like Scientific Reports, though some mega journals faced delistings from indexing services amid quality and peer-review concerns.[12]

Publishing Model

Peer Review Process and Selectivity

Mega journals employ a distinctive peer review process centered on assessing technical soundness, reproducibility, and ethical compliance, rather than evaluating novelty, significance, or potential impact. This "soundness-only" criterion allows for broader acceptance of valid research across disciplines, resulting in rejection rates typically ranging from 30% to 70%[13], in contrast to the 80-90% rejection rates common in traditional selective journals.[14] The review process in mega journals generally involves 2-3 external reviewers per submission, with academic editors—often generalists rather than domain-specific experts—conducting an initial screening to determine suitability for external review. Reviews are commonly conducted under a single-blind format, where reviewers know the authors' identities but authors remain unaware of reviewers, though some journals offer open review options. Emphasis is placed on rapid turnaround, with median times to first decision often falling between 4 and 6 weeks, enabling efficient handling of high submission volumes.[15][15][15] Unique aspects of mega journal peer review include optional post-publication scrutiny, such as integration with platforms like PubPeer for ongoing community commentary and validation. This model facilitates interdisciplinary submissions by avoiding siloed expertise requirements, allowing broad-scope journals to accommodate diverse research without rigid field boundaries. Scalability is a key strength, as exemplified by PLOS ONE, which has historically processed tens of thousands of submissions annually through streamlined workflows.[16][14][17] Variations exist among mega journals, with some adopting hybrid approaches that retain core validity-focused reviews while incorporating elements like cascaded submissions from other journals. For instance, eLife's model, implemented in 2023, publishes all papers that pass peer review regardless of perceived impact, combining preprint immediacy with expert assessment to prioritize scientific rigor over selectivity.[18][19]

Economic Structure and Article Processing Charges

Mega journals operate on an article processing charge (APC) model, where authors pay a flat fee upon acceptance to cover publication costs, enabling immediate open access without subscription barriers for readers. However, some are transitioning to alternative models, such as PLOS's shift away from traditional APCs since 2021, supported by grants like a $3.3 million award from the Gates Foundation in 2024 to enable APC-free publishing for certain authors.[20][21] In 2025, APCs for those still using the model typically range from $1,500 to $3,000 per article, reflecting an average of approximately $2,000 across open access journals.[22][23] To promote equity, many publishers offer full or partial waivers for authors from low- and middle-income countries through programs like Research4Life, which facilitates access to fee reductions based on World Bank classifications.[24][2] Revenue in mega journals relies on high submission and publication volumes to offset the relatively modest per-article fees, generating substantial income through scale. For instance, the Public Library of Science (PLOS), a key player in the mega journal space, reported total revenues of $34.2 million in 2023, primarily from APCs across its journals, with PLOS ONE contributing the majority by publishing thousands of articles annually.[25][15] Publisher profit margins in this model often range from 30% to 50% after deducting operational costs for for-profit entities, supported by the absence of print production expenses in their digital-only format, though nonprofits like PLOS operate without profit motives.[26][27][28] Operational costs in mega journals encompass editing, peer review management, production services, platform hosting, marketing, and support functions, with no allocation for physical printing due to the online-only approach. A representative breakdown from PLOS in 2023 shows approximately 14% allocated to submission handling and first decision, 12% to platform development and hosting, and 18% to sales and marketing for PLOS ONE, illustrating how these expenses are distributed to maintain high-volume operations.[29] Sustainability in the mega journal model faces pressures from annual APC increases of 5-10% since 2020, driven by rising operational demands and inflation, alongside heavy reliance on institutional and grant funding to cover author fees.[30][31] In contrast to hybrid journals, which benefit from dual revenue streams of subscriptions plus APCs for open access options, mega journals depend entirely on APC volume, heightening vulnerability to fluctuations in submission rates or funding availability.[32][33]

Impact and Influence

Academic and Scientific Contributions

Mega journals have significantly advanced the accessibility of scientific research by emphasizing rapid publication and open access, enabling barrier-free dissemination of valid findings to researchers worldwide. This model removes traditional paywalls and lengthy review processes, promoting global collaboration across institutions and borders with limited resources. For instance, in 2022, mega journals published around 300,000 articles, accounting for approximately one-quarter of all biomedical literature that year, thereby amplifying the reach of research in critical fields.[11] The inclusive publishing approach of mega journals has increased the volume and diversity of scientific output by accommodating negative, null, and inconclusive results that are often rejected by traditional journals focused on novelty. This has enriched the scientific record with interdisciplinary work spanning multiple fields, reducing publication bias and allowing for more comprehensive knowledge building. Articles in mega journals benefit from broader visibility due to their open access nature, resulting in higher citation counts compared to those in conventional journals, as evidenced by bibliometric analyses showing enhanced impact through wider readership.[34][35][36] In specific domains, mega journals have facilitated key breakthroughs, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, where their streamlined peer review enabled swift sharing of findings on viral dynamics, epidemiology, and interventions. Journals such as PLOS ONE published extensive COVID-19-related research in 2020 and 2021, contributing to accelerated global responses and policy development. Additionally, by evaluating submissions primarily on scientific soundness rather than perceived impact, mega journals provide vital opportunities for early-career researchers, who comprise a notable portion of their author base, to build their publication records without the barriers of prestige-driven selectivity.[37][38] As of 2022, mega journals collectively published over 300,000 articles, accounting for nearly 25% of biomedical literature and a substantial portion (~10%) of global peer-reviewed output, demonstrating their growing influence on scholarly communication.[3] Altmetrics data further indicate higher public engagement for open access articles like those in mega journals, with increased shares and mentions on social media and news outlets reflecting broader societal impact beyond academia.[39]

Broader Industry and Market Effects

The mega journal model has accelerated a broader transition in academic publishing from traditional subscription-based systems to article processing charge (APC)-driven open access frameworks, reshaping revenue streams and accessibility. This shift places financial burdens directly on authors and funders rather than readers or institutions, with mega journals exemplifying high-volume, broad-scope outlets that prioritize rapid dissemination over niche selectivity. By 2022, mega journals accounted for approximately 25% of biomedical literature output, underscoring their growing dominance in the open access segment and compelling traditional publishers to integrate similar APC-reliant models to remain competitive.[40][41][42] Publishers like Elsevier have faced mounting pressure from this evolution, prompting adaptations such as expanded open access options within their hybrid portfolios to counter the appeal of mega journals' efficiency and lower barriers to entry.[43] Industry consolidation has intensified as large publishers leverage mega journals to capture market share, with entities like Springer Nature leading through extensive open access portfolios that include high-output titles such as Scientific Reports. In 2024, Springer Nature launched 68 new open access journals, contributing to their overall dominance in the sector and highlighting how scale enables cost efficiencies and broader reach. The global open access publishing market reached approximately $2.1 billion in value that year, driven largely by APC revenues from such consolidated players, which now handle a significant portion of scholarly output.[44][45] Policies like Europe's Plan S, introduced in 2018, have aligned closely with mega journals by mandating immediate open access for publicly funded research, thereby boosting demand for APC-based outlets that facilitate compliance without embargoes. Similarly, the U.S. Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) memo in 2022 directed federal agencies to ensure immediate public access to funded publications and data, further entrenching open access mandates and favoring models like those of mega journals. These initiatives have strained library budgets, redirecting funds from journal subscriptions to dedicated APC pools, with institutions increasingly allocating resources to cover author fees amid rising publication volumes.[46][47][48][49] Looking ahead, the open access market, bolstered by mega journals, is projected to grow to $3.2 billion by 2028 at a compound annual growth rate of around 10%, potentially elevating mega journals' share significantly through continued policy support and technological efficiencies. However, this trajectory raises concerns over monopolistic tendencies among dominant publishers, as evidenced by ongoing antitrust scrutiny of major players, which could diminish diversity in the publishing landscape by favoring large-scale operations over smaller or specialized venues.[45][50][51][52]

Notable Examples

PLOS ONE as Pioneer

PLOS ONE, launched on December 20, 2006, by the Public Library of Science (PLOS), a nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing open science, marked a pivotal moment in scholarly publishing by introducing the mega journal model.[53] The journal's founding stemmed from PLOS's broader mission to promote unrestricted access to scientific literature, building on the organization's earlier advocacy efforts, including a 2001 open letter signed by over 34,000 scientists calling for free public access to publicly funded research within six months of publication.[54] From its inception, PLOS ONE emphasized scientific validity over perceived novelty or impact, accepting rigorous research across diverse fields. As of November 2025, it has published approximately 327,000 articles, demonstrating substantial growth despite fluctuations in annual output, which peaked at around 31,000 articles in 2013 before stabilizing at approximately 25,000 as of 2024-2025.[16][55] Its interdisciplinary scope spans over 200 subject areas in science, engineering, medicine, and related social sciences and humanities, enabling broad contributions from global researchers.[15] Operationally, PLOS ONE maintains an article processing charge (APC) of $2,382 for standard research articles as of 2025, funding its open access model while offering waivers and assistance programs for eligible authors.[2] The journal's peer review focuses on methodological soundness, resulting in an acceptance rate of approximately 31% as of 2023, which balances inclusivity with quality control.[15] Innovations include themed collections that highlight pressing issues; for instance, the Responding to Climate Change collection, initiated in 2014, curates research on mitigation strategies, adaptation efforts, and interdisciplinary responses to environmental challenges.[56] These collections foster targeted discussions and have influenced policy and public discourse on global topics. PLOS ONE receives tens of thousands of submissions annually, positioning it as one of the highest-volume mega journals and a leader in disseminating diverse scientific output. In recent years, PLOS ONE has faced challenges with retractions, including over 100 in 2022 related to fraudulent submissions, prompting enhanced editorial oversight.[16] Among its achievements, PLOS ONE holds a 2024 Journal Impact Factor of 2.6, reflecting its sustained influence despite the dilution effect of high publication volume on traditional metrics.[23] It has played a central role in open access advocacy through PLOS's foundational petitions, which catalyzed institutional shifts toward equitable knowledge sharing and inspired similar initiatives worldwide.[54] In response to growing emphasis on transparency, the journal introduced Lab Protocols and Study Protocols in early 2021, allowing peer-reviewed publication of detailed methodologies and research plans to enhance reproducibility and facilitate future validations.[57] These adaptations underscore PLOS ONE's evolution as a pioneer, prioritizing practical tools for scientific progress over conventional article formats.

Other Key Mega Journals

Scientific Reports, launched by Nature Portfolio in 2011, exemplifies a mega journal with a broad scope encompassing the natural and clinical sciences, including biology, physics, chemistry, and biomedicine.[58][59] By late 2025, it has published over 400,000 articles, reflecting its rapid growth and high output of approximately 30,000 articles annually in recent years.[60][61] The journal charges an article processing charge (APC) of £2,090, contributing to its model of open access dissemination.[62] It is particularly noted for enhancing visibility in biomedicine through indexing in PubMed and widespread accessibility on nature.com.[63] PeerJ, established in 2013, introduces an innovative membership-based model as an alternative to traditional APCs, with options starting at a one-time lifetime fee of $99 for basic membership allowing one article per year or higher tiers for unlimited submissions, emphasizing long-term affordability for researchers in life and environmental sciences.[64][65] The journal focuses on biological, medical, and environmental research, promoting cost-effective open access without per-article fees after initial membership.[66] By 2025, PeerJ has published over 30,000 articles across its sections, underscoring its commitment to accessible publishing in these fields.[67] Heliyon, launched by Elsevier in 2015, operates as a multidisciplinary mega journal covering physical, life, social, and medical sciences, leveraging integration with Elsevier's broader ecosystem for enhanced dissemination and discoverability.[68] It has amassed over 100,000 publications by 2025, with annual output exceeding 17,000 articles in recent years.[69] The APC stands at $2,270, supporting its open access framework while ensuring rapid online publication within 72 hours of acceptance.[70][71] In the 2020s, emerging mega journals from publishers like MDPI have gained prominence, with Sustainability—launched in 2009—reaching mega-scale operations by 2022 through high-volume output in environmental, economic, and social sustainability topics, exceeding 150,000 articles by 2025.[72][73] Overall, non-PLOS mega journals collectively produce over 350,000 articles annually as of 2025, driven largely by MDPI's expansive portfolio.[74]

Criticisms and Challenges

Quality and Editorial Concerns

One key concern surrounding mega journals is their emphasis on scientific validity and soundness over novelty or broader impact, which can result in the publication of incremental research or work with methodological flaws due to relatively lax evaluative criteria. Unlike traditional journals that reject papers lacking significant novelty, mega journals' peer review process prioritizes technical correctness, potentially allowing flawed studies to pass if they meet minimal validity thresholds. For instance, a 2013 investigative submission of a deliberately flawed fake paper to over 300 open-access journals (primarily predatory ones), revealed that more than half accepted it for publication despite obvious scientific errors, underscoring vulnerabilities in low-selectivity review systems in some open-access venues.[75] This approach ties into broader reproducibility issues, where studies estimate irreproducibility rates exceeding 50% in preclinical research, with high-volume outlets like mega journals amplifying risks through rapid publication cycles that may overlook subtle errors in claims or data handling.[76] Editorial challenges in mega journals stem from heavy reliance on volunteer reviewers, who often face burnout amid surging submission volumes that outpace traditional journals. The sheer scale—some mega journals process tens of thousands of manuscripts annually—strains this volunteer model, leading to inconsistent oversight and higher retraction rates; for example, PLOS ONE, a pioneering mega journal, had issued over 500 retractions by 2023, many involving image manipulation or data fabrication.[77] This overdependence exacerbates issues like delayed or superficial reviews, as evidenced by general surveys of peer review fatigue across high-output journals, where reviewers report overwhelming workloads contributing to errors in judgment.[78] Quality metrics further highlight these concerns, with mega journals typically exhibiting lower average impact factors of 2-4 compared to selective traditional journals in the same fields, which often exceed 10. Examples include PLOS ONE at 2.6 and PeerJ at 2.4, reflecting diluted citation influence from a broad mix of outputs. Additionally, the low barriers to publication foster "salami slicing," where researchers fragment single studies into multiple minimal papers to boost publication counts, distorting the literature and undermining cumulative scientific progress—a practice more prevalent in high-acceptance venues.[15] To address these issues, mega journals have implemented mitigation efforts such as enhanced pre-submission screening with AI-driven plagiarism and image forensics tools adopted widely since 2020, which detect manipulations more efficiently than manual checks. Transparency policies, including optional reviewer credits via platforms like Publons (now integrated into Web of Science), aim to incentivize thorough reviews and reduce burnout by recognizing contributions publicly. These steps, combined with stricter post-publication audits, seek to bolster editorial rigor without reverting to novelty-based selectivity.[79][80]

Sustainability and Ethical Issues

The escalating article processing charges (APCs) in mega journals pose significant financial challenges to unfunded researchers, as average APCs for fully open access journals rose by 6.5% in 2025, reaching a maximum of $8,900. Surveys indicate that a substantial portion of researchers encounter difficulties securing funding for these fees, with 63% of respondents in a 2022 study having paid an APC at some point in their careers but many forgoing opportunities due to cost barriers. Accusations of publisher profiteering have intensified, with major academic publishers like Elsevier reporting profit margins of nearly 40% in 2025, exceeding those of tech giants such as Google and Microsoft, amid criticisms that these margins exploit publicly funded research without commensurate reinvestment in accessibility. The pay-to-publish model inherent in mega journals raises ethical concerns about bias toward authors from wealthy institutions, as gold open access publishing in these outlets has been shown to disproportionately burden researchers from developing countries while favoring those with institutional funding. Equity issues are particularly acute in the Global South, where APC waivers are underutilized—hybrid journal uptake remains as low as 3% due to inconsistent waiver policies—and researchers often face exclusion from high-visibility publication despite producing valuable work. This structure conflicts with principles of academic meritocracy, as financial ability rather than scientific quality increasingly determines publication success, potentially perpetuating global disparities in scholarly representation. Broader sustainability challenges include the environmental footprint of storing millions of digital articles, as scholarly publishing's reliance on data centers contributes to significant carbon emissions through energy-intensive servers and network infrastructure. Peer reviewers, essential to the process, face exploitation via uncompensated labor, with journals profiting from their expertise without remuneration, leading to burnout and inefficiencies in an industry that generated over $6 billion in profits annually by 2025. In response, academic societies and consortia have pursued collective bargaining initiatives, such as the 2024-2026 Open Journals Collective, to promote diamond open access models that eliminate APCs and foster equitable, non-profit publishing ecosystems. Looking ahead, mega journals risk increased vulnerability to AI-generated submissions, which are proliferating exponentially in academic outputs and could overwhelm peer review systems by 2030, necessitating robust detection and ethical guidelines to maintain integrity.

References

  1. Have the “mega-journals” reached the limits to growth? - PMC
  2. Explore our publication fees and funding for open access publishing
  3. The Rapid Growth of Mega-Journals: Threats and Opportunities
  4. [PDF] Characteristics of a Megajournal: A Bibliometric Case Study
  5. Evolution of the scholarly mega-journal, 2006–2017 - PMC - NIH
  6. Open-Access Mega-Journals: A Bibliometric Profile | PLOS One
  7. The US National Institutes of Health Public Access Policy - SPARC
  8. Ten years of Scientific Reports - Nature
  9. The Launch of PeerJ | PeerJ Blog
  10. Open Access, Open Science, and Coronavirus: Mega trends with ...
  11. Fast-growing open-access journals stripped of coveted impact factors
  12. Motivations, understandings, and experiences of open‐access ...
  13. Journal Information | PLOS One
  14. retraction-prone editors identified at megajournal PLoS ONE - Nature
  15. Publication timeframes at PLOS ONE - and our plans to improve them
  16. Peer review and publishing at eLife
  17. eLife's New Model: One year on | Inside eLife
  18. NIH details options for limiting its payments for open-access ...
  19. Article Processing Charges (APCs) and the new enclosure of research
  20. Best practices for APC waivers - Research4Life
  21. Financial overview 2022 - PLOS
  22. The money behind academic publishing
  23. How to Make Academic Publishing Fairer, More Open and Less ...
  24. PLOS and Plan S Price & Service Transparency Framework 2022
  25. Open Access Charges – Price Increases Back on Trend - Delta Think
  26. Escalating Costs in Open Access Publishing - Enago
  27. Follow the money – what really matters when choosing a journal ...
  28. Why hybrid journals do not lead to full and immediate Open Access
  29. What are Mega Journals? Akashganga Blog Portal - Aakashganga
  30. Negative Results: The Dark Matter of Research | AJE
  31. Citation beneficiaries of discipline-specific mega-journals - Nature
  32. PLOS One
  33. Motivations, understandings, and experiences of open‐access ...
  34. Guest Post – The Megajournal Lifecycle - The Scholarly Kitchen
  35. Open-access papers draw more citations from a broader readership
  36. Growth and challenges in biomedical scientific publishing
  37. A survey of authors publishing in four megajournals - PMC - NIH
  38. The Fall of "The Big Deal" and the Rise of Open Access in Academic ...
  39. Can Mega-journals Maintain Boundaries When They and Their ...
  40. 2024 Open Access Report - Springer Nature
  41. Open Access Journal Publishing Analysis Report 2024: A $3.2
  42. The Impacts of Plan S - part 1 - Emerald Publishing
  43. [PDF] 08-2022-OSTP-Public-Access-Memo.pdf - Biden White House
  44. 2022 OSTP Public Access Memo Guidance - SPARC
  45. The impact of article processing charges on libraries and what is ...
  46. News & Views: Open Access Loses Share – Market Sizing 2024 ...
  47. Lawsuit highlights how prestige drives academic publishing
  48. Shaking up the scholarly publishing market – Why caps on APCs ...
  49. Fifteen Years of PLOS ONE - EveryONE
  50. The open letter that sparked PLOS and the open access movement
  51. PLOS ONE (Public Library of Science) - SciSpace
  52. PLOS launches Responding to Climate Change Collection
  53. Why is it so expensive to publish paper in Plos one? - Quora
  54. PLOS ONE Impact Factor 2024, Journal Rank & Submission Guide
  55. An update on Lab and Study Protocols at PLOS ONE
  56. New Open Access Publication from Nature Publishing Group - HSLS
  57. Scientific Reports - Scimago
  58. Scientific Reports surpasses PLOS One's record for most research ...
  59. Top 100 of 2024 | Scientific Reports
  60. Scientific Reports - DOAJ
  61. About Scientific Reports | Scientific Reports
  62. PeerJ leads a high-quality, low-cost new breed of open-access ...
  63. PeerJ Lifetime Membership – Pay Once, Publish for Life
  64. PeerJ: an open access business model based around individual ...
  65. Search - PeerJ
  66. New open access journal Heliyon opens for submissions - Elsevier
  67. Heliyon: Impact Factor, Ranking, H-Index, ISSN, CiteScore, SJR and ...
  68. Elsevier Unethically Promotes its Journals via Scopus: The Case of ...
  69. Open Access: Heliyon - Cell Press
  70. Sustainability | Journal Statistics - MDPI
  71. Sustainability | Journal History - MDPI
  72. [PDF] 2022 Annual Report - MDPI
  73. Who's Afraid of Peer Review? - Science
  74. The Economics of Reproducibility in Preclinical Research
  75. The entities enabling scientific fraud at scale are large, resilient, and ...
  76. Reviewer fatigue is real - PMC - NIH
  77. Transparency, credit, and peer review - The Official PLOS Blog
  78. Can AI Tools Reliably and Effectively Detect Plagiarism in Scientific ...
User Avatar
No comments yet.