{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,3,18]],"date-time":"2026-03-18T08:03:55Z","timestamp":1773821035963,"version":"3.50.1"},"reference-count":26,"publisher":"Emerald","issue":"2","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2018,11,12]],"date-time":"2018-11-12T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1541980800000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/www.emerald.com\/insight\/site-policies"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["OIR"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2021,3,15]]},"abstract":"<jats:sec><jats:title content-type=\"abstract-subheading\">Purpose<\/jats:title><jats:p>The purpose of this paper is to look at two particular aspects of open access megajournals, a new type of scholarly journals. Such journals only review for scientific soundness and leave the judgment of scientific impact to the readers. The two leading journals currently each publish more than 20,000 articles per year. The publishing speed of such journals and acceptance rates of such journals are the topics of the study.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title content-type=\"abstract-subheading\">Design\/methodology\/approach<\/jats:title><jats:p>Submission, acceptance and publication dates for a sample of articles in 12 megajournals were manually extracted from the articles. Information about acceptance rates was obtained using web searches of journal home pages, editorials, blogs, etc.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title content-type=\"abstract-subheading\">Findings<\/jats:title><jats:p>The time from submission to publication varies a lot, with engineering megajournals publishing much more rapidly. But on average it takes almost half a year to get published, particularly in the high-volume biomedical journals. As some of the journals have grown in publication volume, the average review time has increased by almost two months. Acceptance rates have slightly decreased over the past five years, and are now in the range of 50\u201355 percent.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title content-type=\"abstract-subheading\">Originality\/value<\/jats:title><jats:p>This is the first empirical study of how long it takes to get published in megajournals and it highlights a clear increase of around two months in publishing. Currently, the review process in the biomedical megajournals takes as long as in regular more selective journals in the same fields. Possible explanations could be increasing difficulties in finding willing and motivated reviewers and in a higher share of submissions from developing countries.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1108\/oir-04-2018-0151","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2018,11,12]],"date-time":"2018-11-12T10:08:12Z","timestamp":1542017292000},"page":"270-277","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":30,"title":["Publishing speed and acceptance rates of open access megajournals"],"prefix":"10.1108","volume":"45","author":[{"given":"Bo-Christer","family":"Bj\u00f6rk","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"140","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2018,11,12]]},"reference":[{"key":"key2022092314473591800_ref001","article-title":"Is it becoming harder to secure reviewers for peer review? A test with data from five ecology journals","volume":"1","year":"2016","journal-title":"Research Integrity and Peer Review"},{"key":"key2022092314473591800_ref002","unstructured":"Anderson, K. (2011), \u201cIs PLoS one slowing down?\u201d, Blogpost, The Scholarly Kitchen, July 10, available at: https:\/\/scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org\/2011\/10\/07\/is-plos-one-slowing-down\/ (accessed July 29, 2018)."},{"key":"key2022092314473591800_ref003","unstructured":"Binfield, P. (2013), \u201cOpen access megajournals \u2013 have they changed everything?\u201d, Blogpost, Creative Commons Aotearoa, available at: http:\/\/creativecommons.org.nz\/2013\/10\/open-access-megajournals-have-they-changed-everything\/ (accessed July 29, 2018)."},{"key":"key2022092314473591800_ref004","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"e981","DOI":"10.7717\/peerj.981","article-title":"Have the \u2018mega-journals\u2019 reached the limits to growth?","volume":"3","year":"2015","journal-title":"PeerJ"},{"key":"key2022092314473591800_ref005","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"e4357","DOI":"10.7717\/peerj.4357","article-title":"Evolution of the scholarly mega-journal, 2006-2017","volume":"6","year":"2018","journal-title":"PeerJ"},{"issue":"1","key":"key2022092314473591800_ref024","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"9","DOI":"10.1002\/leap.1007","article-title":"Peer review in megajournals compared with traditional scholarly journals: does it make a difference?","volume":"29","year":"2016","journal-title":"Learned Publishing"},{"issue":"4","key":"key2022092314473591800_ref006","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"914","DOI":"10.1016\/j.joi.2013.09.001","article-title":"The publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed journals","volume":"7","year":"2013","journal-title":"Journal of Informetrics"},{"key":"key2022092314473591800_ref007","unstructured":"Da Silva, R. (2015), \u201cSelecting for impact: new data debunks old beliefs\u201d, Frontiers Blog, December 21, available at: https:\/\/blog.frontiersin.org\/2015\/12\/21\/4782\/ (accessed July 29, 2018)."},{"issue":"2","key":"key2022092314473591800_ref300","article-title":"A survey of the scholarly journals using open journal systems","volume":"1","year":"2010","journal-title":"Scholarly and Research Communications"},{"issue":"3","key":"key2022092314473591800_ref008","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"189","DOI":"10.1002\/leap.1155","article-title":"What influences the regional diversity of reviewers: a study of medical and agricultural\/biological sciences journals","volume":"31","year":"2018","journal-title":"Learned Publishing"},{"issue":"1","key":"key2022092314473591800_ref009","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"633","DOI":"10.1007\/s11192-017-2310-5","article-title":"Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author\u2019s perspective","volume":"113","year":"2017","journal-title":"Scientometrics"},{"key":"key2022092314473591800_ref010","unstructured":"Inchcoombe, S. and Weinheimer, H. (2016), \u201cA few words on sound science, megajournals, and an announcement about SpringerPlus\u201d, Blogpost, June 13, available at: www.springer.com\/gp\/about-springer\/media\/statements\/a-few-words-on-sound-science--megajournals--and-an-announcement-about-springerplus\/10232732 (accessed July 29, 2018)."},{"key":"key2022092314473591800_ref011","unstructured":"Kaufman-Wills Group (2005), \u201cThe facts about open access\u201d, Study Commissioned By The ALPSP, AAAS and High-Wire Press, The Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers, London, available at: www.alpsp.org\/publications\/FAOAcomplete.pdf (accessed July 29, 2018)."},{"key":"key2022092314473591800_ref012","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"e0166387","DOI":"10.1371\/journal.pone.0166387","article-title":"The global burden of journal peer review in the biomedical literature: strong imbalance in the collective enterprise","volume":"11","year":"2016","journal-title":"PLOS One"},{"issue":"95","key":"key2022092314473591800_ref013","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1186\/s13104-017-2418-y","article-title":"Bite-size research: BMC research notes goes back to its roots","volume":"10","year":"2017","journal-title":"BMC Research Notes"},{"key":"key2022092314473591800_ref014","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"e:365","DOI":"10.7717\/peerj.365","article-title":"A survey of authors publishing in four megajournals","volume":"2","year":"2014","journal-title":"PeerJ"},{"issue":"2","key":"key2022092314473591800_ref015","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"263","DOI":"10.1108\/JD-06-2016-0082","article-title":"Open-access mega-journals: the future of scholarly communication or academic dumping ground? A review","volume":"73","year":"2017","journal-title":"Journal of Documentation"},{"issue":"1","key":"key2022092314473591800_ref016","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"137","DOI":"10.1108\/JD-06-2017-0092","article-title":"\u2018Let the community decide\u2019? The vision and reality of soundness-only peer review in open-access mega-journals","volume":"74","year":"2018","journal-title":"Journal of Documentation"},{"key":"key2022092314473591800_ref017","unstructured":"Thomson Reuters (2012), \u201cGlobal publishing: changes in submission trends and the impact on scholarly publishers\u201d, white paper, Thomson Reuters, London, available at: http:\/\/scholarone.com\/media\/pdf\/GlobalPublishing_WP.pdf (accessed July 29, 2018)."},{"key":"key2022092314473591800_ref018","unstructured":"UUK (2017), \u201cMonitoring the transition to open access: December 2017\u201d, Report commissioned by the Universities UK Open Access Co-ordination Group, December 5, London, available at: http:\/\/eprints.whiterose.ac.uk\/125509\/1\/monitoring-transition-open-access-2017finalpublishedversionVoR.pdf (accessed July 29, 2018)."},{"issue":"3","key":"key2022092314473591800_ref019","first-page":"313","article-title":"Open access megajournals: the publisher perspective (part 2: operational realities)","volume":"30","year":"2017","journal-title":"Learned Publishing"},{"issue":"3","key":"key2022092314473591800_ref020","first-page":"301","article-title":"Open access megajournals: the publisher perspective\u2019 (part 1: motivations)","volume":"30","year":"2017","journal-title":"Learned Publishing"},{"key":"key2022092314473591800_ref021","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"e0165359","DOI":"10.1371\/journal.pone.0165359","article-title":"Open-access mega-journals: a bibliometric profile","volume":"11","year":"2016","journal-title":"PLOS One"},{"issue":"2","key":"key2022092314473591800_ref022","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.3390\/publications5020007","article-title":"Transitioning from a conventional to a \u2018mega\u2019 journal: a bibliometric case study of the journal medicine","volume":"5","year":"2017","journal-title":"Publications"},{"key":"key2022092314473591800_ref023","unstructured":"Ware, M. and Mabe, M. (2015), \u201cThe STM report: an overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing\u201d, Mark Ware Consulting, London, available at: www.markwareconsulting.com\/the-stm-report\/ (accessed July 29, 2018)."},{"issue":"4","key":"key2022092314473591800_ref025","first-page":"595","article-title":"Reviewer fatigue? Why scholars decline to review their peers\u2019 work","volume":"48","year":"2015","journal-title":"PS: Political Science and Politics"}],"container-title":["Online Information Review"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/www.emerald.com\/insight\/content\/doi\/10.1108\/OIR-04-2018-0151\/full\/xml","content-type":"application\/xml","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/www.emerald.com\/insight\/content\/doi\/10.1108\/OIR-04-2018-0151\/full\/html","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2025,7,24]],"date-time":"2025-07-24T22:42:45Z","timestamp":1753396965000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"http:\/\/www.emerald.com\/oir\/article\/45\/2\/270-277\/452283"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2018,11,12]]},"references-count":26,"journal-issue":{"issue":"2","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2018,11,12]]},"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2021,3,15]]}},"alternative-id":["10.1108\/OIR-04-2018-0151"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1108\/oir-04-2018-0151","relation":{},"ISSN":["1468-4527"],"issn-type":[{"value":"1468-4527","type":"print"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2018,11,12]]}}}