Is the soundness-only quality control policy of open access mega journals linked to a higher rate of published errors?

Mohammadamin Erfanmanesh () and Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva ()
Additional contact information
Mohammadamin Erfanmanesh: University of Malaya

Scientometrics, 2019, vol. 120, issue 2, No 26, 917-923

Abstract: Abstract Open access mega journals (OAMJs) are broad and centralized open access journals that have come to represent profitable outlets for accumulating large volumes of research from multiple fields of study, including papers that are rejected from other journals by the same publisher. Some OAMJs charge hefty (exceeding US$1000) article processing fees. One characteristic of OAMJs is a large editorial board. In 2015, Björk indicated that a primary characteristic of an OAMJ was its prepublication soundness only peer review, i.e., novelty, significance, relevance and impact are assessed only post-publication. However, such a premise ignores the inherent nature of peers’ bias. This controversial claim is challenged in this paper by assessing whether there is a link between research output (number of papers published in each OAMJ) and number of errata, including retractions. We assessed 16 OAMJs indexed in Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science and found wide variation in published errata and retractions across OAMJs between 2012 and 2018. PLOS ONE had the highest correction rate (3.159%), followed by Medicine (3.158%), BMJ Open (2.949%) and Scientific Reports (2.896%). In contrast, PeerJ, Elementa, and Science of the Anthropocene did not publish any errata in 2012–2018 but IEEE Access had a correction rate of 0.059%. Regarding the retraction rate, the highest share of retracted publications was seen in Medicine (0.079%), Cell Reports (0.035%) and PLOS ONE (0.030%), while nine out of the 16 studied OAMJs did not have any retracted publications during 2012–2018. We conclude that there is wide variation in “quality control”, as assessed through errata and retractions, among OAMJs. We recommend, therefore, that the “soundness only peer review” prerequisite for OAMJs should be scrapped.

Keywords: Article processing charge; Journal cascading; OA; OAMJ; Post-publication peer review (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2019
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (4)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-019-03153-5 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:scient:v:120:y:2019:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-019-03153-5

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/11192

DOI: 10.1007/s11192-019-03153-5

Access Statistics for this article

Scientometrics is currently edited by Wolfgang Glänzel

More articles in Scientometrics from Springer, Akadémiai Kiadó
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().