SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Is the soundness-only quality control policy of open access mega journals linked to a higher rate of published errors?
15 references·4 citing·50 second hop
Is the soundness-only quality control policy of open access mega journals linked to a higher rate of published errors? (2019)Is the soundness-only quality control pol…Publishing speed and acceptance rates of open access megajournals (2018)Publishing speed and acceptan…Evolution of the scholarly mega-journal, 2006–2017 (2018)Evolution of the scholarly me…Transitioning from a Conventional to a ‘Mega’ Journal: A Bibliometric Case Study of the Journal Medicine (2017)Transitioning from a Conventi…Open-access mega-journals (2017)Open-access mega-journals“Let the community decide”? The vision and reality of soundness-only peer review in open-access mega-journals (2017)“Let the community decide”? T…Open-Access Mega-Journals: A Bibliometric Profile (2016)Open-Access Mega-Journals: A …Notices and Policies for Retractions, Expressions of Concern, Errata and Corrigenda: Their Importance, Content, and Context (2016)Notices and Policies for Retr…An Error is an Error… is an Erratum: The Ethics of not Correcting Errors in the Science Literature (2016)An Error is an Error… is an E…Have the “mega-journals” reached the limits to growth? (2015)Have the “mega-journals” reac…A survey of authors publishing in four megajournals (2014)A survey of authors publishin…Multidimensional Journal Evaluation: Analyzing Scientific Periodicals beyond the Impact Factor (2012)Multidimensional Journal Eval…Multidimensional Journal Evaluation (2012)Multidimensional Journal Eval…Bias in peer review (2012)Bias in peer reviewScientific peer review (2011)Scientific peer reviewCharacterization of Published Errors in High-Impact Oncology Journals (2011)Characterization of Published…A comparative study on characteristics of retracted publications across different open access levels (2024)A comparative study on charac…Recommendations from the Reducing the Inadvertent Spread of Retracted Science: Shaping a Research and Implementation Agenda Project (2021)Recommendations from the Redu…Peer reviewing in the contemporary academic communications (2021)Peer reviewing in the contemp…Corrective factors for author- and journal-based metrics impacted by citations to accommodate for retractions (2019)Corrective factors for author…A study of open access journals using article processing charges (2012)Anatomy of open access publishing: a study of longitudinal development and internal structure (2012)The publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed journals (2013)Retracted Publications in the Biomedical Literature from Open Access Journals (2018)Methods to account for citation inflation in research evaluation (2019)Over-optimization of academic publishing metrics: observing Goodhart's Law in action (2019)THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS (1963)The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1963)The Matthew Effect in Science (1968)A review of theory and practice in scientometrics (2015)Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references (2015)Citations, Citation Indicators, and Research Quality: An Overview of Basic Concepts and Theories (2019)Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises (1998)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)The Metric Tide: Report of the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management (2015)Positioning and Power in Academic Publishing: Players, Agents and Agendas (2016)Publication fees in open access publishing: Sources of funding and factors influencing choice of journal (2011)Developing an effective market for Open A APC (2014)How open science helps researchers succeed (2016)“Excellence R Us”: university research and the fetishisation of excellence (2017)Misconduct Policies in High-Impact Biomedical Journals (2012)Why Growing Retractions Are (Mostly) a Good Sign (2013)Problems with Traditional Science Publishing and Finding a Wider Niche for Post-Publication Peer Review (2014)A survey of retracted articles in dentistry (2017)Lack of Improvement in Scientific Integrity: An Analysis of WoS Retractions by Chinese Researchers (1997–2016) (2017)A Synthesis of the Formats for Correcting Erroneous and Fraudulent Academic Literature, and Associated Challenges (2022)Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals (2010)Anatomy of green open access (2013)The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis (2015)A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review (2017)The memory of science: Inflation, myopia, and the knowledge network (2018)Impact factor: a valid measure of journal quality? (2003)Do Altmetrics Work? Twitter and Ten Other Social Web Services (2013)Open access: The true cost of science publishing (2013)Demarcating spectrums of predatory publishing: Economic and institutional sources of academic legitimacy (2020)Discipline-specific open access publishing practices and barriers to change: an evidence-based review (2020)Article processing charges for open access journal publishing: A review (2023)Content Analysis in Mass Communication: Assessment and Reporting of Intercoder Reliability (2002)Using thematic analysis in psychology (2006)Who's Afraid of Peer Review? (2013)Who are the 100 largest scientific publishers by journal count? A webscraping approach (2022)Productivity and Impact of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)-Related Academic Research: A Bibliometric Analysis (2023)Peer Review in the Age of Generative AI (2024)Open Access (2012)Adoption of the Open Access Business Model in Scientific Journal Publishing: A Cross-disciplinary Study (2020)Understanding the increasing market share of the academic publisher “Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute” in the publication output of Central and Eastern European countries: a case study of Hungary (2022)The Rapid Growth of Mega-Journals (2023)Tweeting biomedicine: An analysis of tweets and citations in the biomedical literature (2013)The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era (2015)A review of the literature on citation impact indicators (2016)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2012Bias in peer review1,111 cited
  • 2011Scientific peer review594 cited
  • 2015Have the “mega-journals” reached the limits to growth?151 cited
  • 2017Open-access mega-journals138 cited
  • 2016Open-Access Mega-Journals: A Bibliometric Profile89 cited
  • 2014A survey of authors publishing in four megajournals84 cited
  • 2016Notices and Policies for Retractions, Expressions of Concern, Errata and Corrigenda: Their Importance, Content, and Context69 cited
  • 2018Evolution of the scholarly mega-journal, 2006–201766 cited
  • 2017“Let the community decide”? The vision and reality of soundness-only peer review in open-access mega-journals59 cited
  • 2012Multidimensional Journal Evaluation58 cited
  • 2016An Error is an Error… is an Erratum: The Ethics of not Correcting Errors in the Science Literature45 cited
  • 2012Multidimensional Journal Evaluation: Analyzing Scientific Periodicals beyond the Impact Factor38 cited
  • 2018Publishing speed and acceptance rates of open access megajournals37 cited
  • 2011Characterization of Published Errors in High-Impact Oncology Journals31 cited
  • 2017Transitioning from a Conventional to a ‘Mega’ Journal: A Bibliometric Case Study of the Journal Medicine

Only edges whose both ends are imported exist here. Widen the year window, or show the whole map. Back to the work

29 cited

Cited by

  • 2019Corrective factors for author- and journal-based metrics impacted by citations to accommodate for retractions17 cited
  • 2021Recommendations from the Reducing the Inadvertent Spread of Retracted Science: Shaping a Research and Implementation Agenda Project13 cited
  • 2021Peer reviewing in the contemporary academic communications10 cited
  • 2024A comparative study on characteristics of retracted publications across different open access levels10 cited