View in EDS

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

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Is the soundness-only quality control policy of open access mega journals linked to a higher rate of published errors?
Authors: Erfanmanesh, Mohammadamin1 (AUTHOR) amin.erfanmanesh@um.edu.my, Teixeira da Silva, Jaime A.2 (AUTHOR) jaimetex@yahoo.com
Source: Scientometrics. Aug2019, Vol. 120 Issue 2, p917-923. 7p.
Subjects: Published errata, Web analytics, Error rates, Quality control, Technical reports, Editorial boards
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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Scientometrics is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Engineering Source
FullText Text:
  Availability: 0
Header DbId: egs
DbLabel: Engineering Source
An: 137685265
AccessLevel: 6
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Is the soundness-only quality control policy of open access mega journals linked to a higher rate of published errors?
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Erfanmanesh%2C+Mohammadamin%22">Erfanmanesh, Mohammadamin</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<i> amin.erfanmanesh@um.edu.my</i><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Teixeira+da+Silva%2C+Jaime+A%2E%22">Teixeira da Silva, Jaime A.</searchLink><relatesTo>2</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<i> jaimetex@yahoo.com</i>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22Scientometrics%22">Scientometrics</searchLink>. Aug2019, Vol. 120 Issue 2, p917-923. 7p.
– Name: Subject
  Label: Subjects
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Published+errata%22">Published errata</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Web+analytics%22">Web analytics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Error+rates%22">Error rates</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Quality+control%22">Quality control</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Technical+reports%22">Technical reports</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Editorial+boards%22">Editorial boards</searchLink>
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
– Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright
  Label:
  Group: Ab
  Data: <i>Copyright of Scientometrics is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=egs&AN=137685265
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s11192-019-03153-5
    Languages:
      – Code: eng
        Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 7
        StartPage: 917
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Published errata
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Web analytics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Error rates
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Quality control
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Technical reports
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Editorial boards
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Is the soundness-only quality control policy of open access mega journals linked to a higher rate of published errors?
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Erfanmanesh, Mohammadamin
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Teixeira da Silva, Jaime A.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 08
              Text: Aug2019
              Type: published
              Y: 2019
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 01389130
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 120
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Scientometrics
              Type: main
ResultId 1