Simon Wakeling

Open-access mega-journals: A bibliometric profile

In this paper we present the first comprehensive bibliometric analysis of eleven open-access mega-journals (OAMJs). OAMJs are a relatively recent phenomenon, and have been characterised as having four key characteristics: large size; broad disciplinary scope; a Gold-OA business model; and a peer-review policy that seeks to determine only the scientific soundness of the research rather than evaluate the novelty or significance of the work. Our investigation focuses on four key modes of analysis: journal outputs (the number of articles published and changes in output over time); OAMJ author characteristics (nationalities and institutional affiliations); subject areas (the disciplinary scope of OAMJs, and variations in sub-disciplinary output); and citation profiles (the citation distributions of each OAMJ, and the impact of citing journals). We found that while the total output of the eleven mega-journals grew by 14.9% between 2014 and 2015, this growth is largely attributable to the increased output of Scientific Reports and Medicine. We also found substantial variation in the geographical distribution of authors. Several journals have a relatively high proportion of Chinese authors, and we suggest this may be linked to these journals’ high Journal Impact Factors (JIFs). The mega-journals were also found to vary in subject scope, with several journals publishing disproportionately high numbers of articles in certain sub-disciplines. Our citation analsysis offers support for Björk & Catani’s suggestion that OAMJs’s citation distributions can be similar to those of traditional journals, while noting considerable variation in citation rates across the eleven titles. We conclude that while the OAMJ term is useful as a means of grouping journals which share a set of key characteristics, there is no such thing as a “typical” mega-journal, and we suggest several areas for additional research that might help us better understand the current and future role of OAMJs in scholarly communication.

Open-access mega-journals: The future of scholarly communication or academic dumping ground? A review

Purpose Open-access mega-journals (OAMJs) represent an increasingly important part of the scholarly communication landscape. OAMJs, such as PLOS ONE, are large scale, broad scope journals that operate an open access business model (normally based on article-processing charges), and which employ a novel form of peer review, focussing on scientific “soundness” and eschewing judgement of novelty or importance. The purpose of this paper is to examine the discourses relating to OAMJs, and their place within scholarly publishing, and considers attitudes towards mega-journals within the academic community. Design/methodology/approach This paper presents a review of the literature of OAMJs structured around four defining characteristics: scale, disciplinary scope, peer review policy, and economic model. The existing scholarly literature was augmented by searches of more informal outputs, such as blogs and e-mail discussion lists, to capture the debate in its entirety. Findings While the academic literature relating specifically to OAMJs is relatively sparse, discussion in other fora is detailed and animated, with debates ranging from the sustainability and ethics of the mega-journal model, to the impact of soundness-only peer review on article quality and discoverability, and the potential for OAMJs to represent a paradigm-shifting development in scholarly publishing. Originality/value This paper represents the first comprehensive review of the mega-journal phenomenon, drawing not only on the published academic literature, but also grey, professional and informal sources. The paper advances a number of ways in which the role of OAMJs in the scholarly communication environment can be conceptualised.

“Readers who borrowed this also borrowed … ”: recommender systems in UK libraries

Purpose – Moves towards more interactive services on the web have led libraries to add an increasing range of functionality to their OPACS. Given the prevalence of recommender systems on the wider web, especially in e‐commerce environments, this paper aims to review current research in this area that is of particular relevance to the library community. It attempts to gauge the uptake of recommender systems in exiting OPAC services, and identify issues that might be responsible for inhibiting wider uptake.Design/methodology/approach – This paper draws on an extensive literature review, as well as original research comparing the functionality of 211 public and 118 university library OPACs in the UK. Examining current recommender systems research, it outlines the most significant recommendation models and reviews research in two key areas of recommender systems design: data acquisition, and the explanation of recommendations. It discusses three existing library recommendation systems: BibTip, LibraryThing fo...

Open access megajournals: The publisher perspective (Part 2: Operational realities)

This paper is the second of two Learned Publishing articles in which we report the results of a series of interviews, with senior publishers and editors exploring open access megajournals (OAMJs). Megajournals (of which PLoS One is the best known example) represent a relatively new approach to scholarly communication and can be characterized as large, broad‐scope, open access journals, which take an innovative approach to peer review, basing acceptance decisions solely on the technical or scientific soundness of the article. Based on interviews with 31 publishers and editors, this paper reports the perceived cultural, operational, and technical challenges associated with launching, growing, and maintaining a megajournal. We find that overcoming these challenges while delivering the societal benefits associated with OAMJs is seen to require significant investment in people and systems, as well as an ongoing commitment to the model.

Open access megajournals: The publisher perspective (Part 1: Motivations)

This paper is the first of two Learned Publishing articles in which we report the results of a series of interviews with senior publishers and editors exploring open access megajournals (OAMJs). Megajournals (of which PLoS One is the best known example) represent a relatively new approach to scholarly communication and can be characterized as large, broad‐scope, open access journals that take an innovative approach to peer review, basing acceptance decisions solely on the technical or scientific soundness of the article. This model is often said to support the broader goals of the open science movement. Based on in‐depth interviews with 31 publishers and editors representing 16 different organizations (10 of which publish a megajournal), this paper reports how the term ‘megajournal’ is understood and publishers’ rationale and motivations for launching (or not launching) an OAMJ. We find that while there is general agreement on the common characteristics of megajournals, there is not yet a consensus on their relative importance. We also find seven motivating factors that were said to drive the launch of an OAMJ and link each of these factors to potential societal and business benefits. These results suggest that the often polarized debate surrounding OAMJs is a consequence of the extent to which observers perceive publishers to be motivated by these societal or business benefits.

Investigating the potential impact of non-personalized recommendations in the OPAC: Amazon vs. WorldCat.org

Recent research into the functionality of Online Public Access Catalogues (OPACs) has led to a call for such systems to incorporate functionality to facilitate resource discovery, and replicate the information search experience users encounter elsewhere on the Web. Recommendations represent one such feature. Developments so far in this area indicate that non-personalized or item-level recommendations are most suited to the OPAC environment. Whilst a number of such systems have been developed and implemented, research has yet to investigate fully the impact of such recommendations on user performance, search behavior, and system perceptions. This paper presents the results of an exploratory laboratory-based study comparing user behavior in Amazon, which offers non-personalized recommendations, and WorldCat.org, which does not. An analysis of task performance and participant interactions with the systems reveals that the presence of non-personalized recommendations improves resource discovery, search efficiency, and perceived usability.

The user-centered design of a recommender system for a universal library catalogue

This paper describes a collaborative project between the University of Sheffields iSchool and OCLC (an international library cooperative), the aim of which is to develop a prototype recommender system for WorldCat.org, the aggregated catalogue of OCLCs member libraries. This paper describes a user-centered approach, utilizing both qualitative and quantitative methods, which aims to establish how and why users engage with library catalogues and WorldCat.org in particular, whether there is a need for recommendations in the library domain, and if so what type of recommendations best support the information-seeking needs of users. An outline of the proposed methodology is provided, along with a report on work completed to date. An analysis of UK library catalogues shows the prevalence of recommender systems to be very low, while initial results from focus group interviews and a pop-up survey show a significant demand for recommendations from two key user-groups (students and academics).

Determining the Optimal Session Interval for Transaction Log Analysis of an Online Library Catalogue

Transaction log analysis at the level of a session is commonly used as a means of understanding user-system interactions. A key practical issue in the process of conducting session level analysis is the segmentation of the logs into appropriate user sessions (i.e., sessionisation). Methods based on time intervals are frequently used as a simple and convenient means of carrying out this segmentation task. However, little work has been carried out to determine whether the commonly applied 30-minute period is appropriate, particularly for the analysis of search logs from library catalogues. Comparison of a range session intervals with human judgements demonstrate that the overall accuracy of session segmentation is relatively constant for session intervals between 26 to 57 min. However, a session interval of between 25 and 30 min minimises the chances of one error type (incorrect collation or incorrect segmentation) predominating.

Integrating Mixed-Methods for Evaluating Information Access Systems

The evaluation of information access systems is increasingly making use of multiple evaluation methods. While such studies represent forms of mixed-methods research, they are rarely acknowledged as such. This means that researchers are potentially failing to recognise the challenges and opportunities offered by multi-phase research, particularly in terms of data integration. This paper provides a brief case study of how one framework --- Bazely & Kemps metaphors for integrated analysis --- was employed to formalise data integration for a large exploratory evaluation study.

Interlending and resource sharing in UK public libraries: A mixed methods study

This paper presents the results of a mixed methods study of interlending and resource sharing in UK public libraries, based on the results of a survey distributed to both senior library managers and interlending staff, and in-depth follow-up interviews with 20 respondents. We present an analysis of perspectives towards rates of interlending, the rationales and strategies for providing the service, the perceived value for money offered by various interlending schemes, the impact of the current digital environment, and views on the future of interlending in the UK. Our findings suggest that while interlending services are undoubtedly threatened by the drastic cuts to public library funding, and that demand for the service is more generally in decline, resource sharing is viewed by some as a potential means of mitigating the effects of increasingly limited acquisitions budgets, and ensuring the public library system continues to provide access to a wide range of resources for its users.