Skip to main content
Log in

Russian Scholarly Papers in Open-Access Megajournals

  • Published:
Scientific and Technical Information Processing Aims and scope

Abstract

The quantity, research topics, and growth rates are assessed for Russian scholarly papers published in open-access megajournals. Russian papers published in PLoS ONE in 2006–2019 are analyzed on the basis of international scientometric indicators. The results are reported of the international coauthorship survey of Russian researchers to define its impact on citation indices. Affiliations are presented for authors with papers in megajournals. Funding of publication charges is discussed for Russian researchers who publish papers in open-access journals.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.
Fig. 5.
Fig. 6.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Data on the number of published papers was obtained from the Scopus database in March 2020.

  2. Data on the number of published papers was obtained from the Directory of Open Access Journals in March 2020. URL: https://doaj.org/

  3. Our editorial process at Scientific Reports [Electron. resource]. 2020. URL: https://www.nature.com/srep/about/editorial-process

  4. About OSA Continuum [Electron. resource]. 2020 URL: https://www.osapublishing.org/osac/journal/osac/about.cfm

  5. Adams C. PLoS One PloS Blogs [Electron. resource]. 2011, SPARC website. URL: https://sparcopen.org/our-work/innovator/plos-one/

  6. Funding for Open Access Articles [Electron. resource]. 2020– URL: https://www.springernature.com/gp/open-research/funding/articles)

REFERENCES

  1. Davis, F., Scientific reports overtakes PLoS One as largest megajournal, Scholarly Kitchen Blog. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/04/06/scientific-reports-overtakes-plos-one-as-largest-megajournal/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_me. Accessed March 4, 2020.

  2. Wakeling S., Willett P., Creaser C., Fry J., Pinfield S., and Spezi, V., Open access megajournals: A bibliometric profile, PLoS One, 2016, vol. 11, no. 11. Accessed March 10, 2020.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0165359

  3. Spezi, V., Wakeling, S., Pinfield, S., Creaser, C., Fry, J., and Willett, P., Open-access mega-journals. The future of scholarly communication or academic dumping ground?, J. Doc., 2017, vol. 73, no. 2, pp. 263–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Binfield, P., PLoS One and the rise of open access mega journal, Society of Scholarly Publishing (SSP) Meeting, 2016. https://www.slideshare.net/PBinfield/ssp-presentation4. Accessed February 11, 2020.

  5. Anderson, K., Can blockchain withstand skepticism? An inquiry, Scholarly Kitchen Blog, 2018. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2018/04/05/can-blockchainwithstand-skepticism-an-inquiry/. Accessed February 5, 2020.

  6. Siler, K., Larivière, V., and Sugimoto, C.R., The diverse niches of megajournals: Specialism within generalism, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol., 2020, vol. 71, no. 7, pp. 800–816.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Björk, B.C., Have the 'mega-journals' reached the limits to “growth?,” PeerJ, 2015, vol. 3. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.981

  8. Pattinson, D., PLoS One publishes its 100,000th article, PloS Blogs, 2014. http://blogs.plos.org/everyone/2014/06/23/plos-one-publishes-100000th-article/. Accessed February 20, 2020.

  9. Ware, M., Peer review: Recent experience and future directions, New Rev. Inf. Networking, 2011, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 23–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lăzăroiu, G., Do mega-journals constitute the future of scholarly communication?, Educ. Philos. Theory, 2017, vol. 49, no. 11, pp. 1047–1050. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2017.1300022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cope, B. and Kalantiz, M., Changing knowledge ecologies and the transformation of the scholarly journal, in The Future of the Academic Journal, Cope, B. and Phillips, A., Eds., Oxford: Chandos Publ., 2014, 2nd ed., pp. 9–83. https://doi.org/10.1533/9781780634647.9

    Book  Google Scholar 

  12. Buriak, J.M., Mega-journals and peer review: Can quality and standards survive, Chem. Mater., 2015, vol. 27, no. 7, pp. 2243–2243. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemmater.5b01142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Tredennick, A., Why I published in PLoS One. And why I probably won’t again for a while, Early Career Ecol., 2013. https://earlycareerecologists.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/. Accessed February 20, 2020.

  14. Butler, D., PLoS stays afloat with bulk publishing, Nature, 2008, vol. 454, no. 7200, p. 11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Wakeling, S., Spezi, V., Creaser, C., Fry, J., Pinfield, S., and Willett, P., Open access megajournals: The publisher perspective (Part 1: Motivations), Learned Publ., 2017, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 301–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Razumova, I.K., Litvinova, N.N., Shvartsman, M.E., and Kuznetsov, A.Yu., Attitude of Russia’s scientific community to Open Access: 2018 Analysis of the survey results, Nauka Nauchn. Inf., 2018, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 6–21. https://doi.org/10.24108/2658-3143-2018-1-1-6-21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Johnson, R., Watkinson, A., and Mabe, M., The STM Report,International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers, An Overview of Scientific and Scholarly Publishing, The Hague, 2018. https://www.stm-assoc.org/2018_10_04_STM_Report_ 2018.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kotsemir, M.N., Publication activity of Russian scientists in leading world journals, Acta Nat., 2012, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 16–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators. NSB-2020-1, Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation, 2020. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20201/global-science-and-technology-capabilities#international-research-collaboration. Accessed January 19, 2020.

  20. Royle, J., Coles, L., Williiams, D., and Evans, P., Publishing in international journals: An examination of trends in Chinese co-authorship, Scientometrics, 2007, vol. 71, no. 1, pp. 59–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Rossiiskii innovatsionnyi indeks (Russian Innovation Index), Gokhberg, L.M., Ed., Moscow: NIU VShE, 2011.

  22. Pislyakov, V.V., Co-authorship of Russian scientists with foreign colleagues: Publications and their citation, Preprint WP6/2010/01, Moscow: Higher School of Economics, 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Goldfinch, S., Dale, T., and De Rouen, J.K., Science from the periphery: Collaboration, networks and periphery effects in the citation of New Zealand Crown Research institutes articles, 1995–2000, Scientometrics, 2003, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 321–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kirchik, O.I., Invisible science. Patterns of internationalization of Russian scientific publications, Forsait, 2011, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 34–42.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Open access: In search of the optimal model, Univ. Kn., 2018, Jan.–Feb., pp. 54–58. http://www.unkniga.ru/copyright/copyrightcom/8107-otkririy-dostup-v-poiske-optimalnoy-modeli.html.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T. N. Domnina.

Ethics declarations

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Translated by A. Kobkova

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Domnina, T.N. Russian Scholarly Papers in Open-Access Megajournals. Sci. Tech. Inf. Proc. 47, 181–193 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3103/S0147688220030065

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.3103/S0147688220030065

Keywords:

Navigation