Skip to main content

A megajournal as a new type of scientific publication


The megajournal is a new form of an academic open-access journal that is peer reviewed for scientific and methodological soundness. Thus, the perceived importance is not assessed, leaving it to the readers to decide whether an article is of interest and importance to them. After the highly successful launch of the PLOS ONE megajournal, other publishers followed this path. The current paper undertakes a review of the articles published internationally on the megajournal criteria defining its concept. It also traces how the new type of scientific publication has been developing and expanding since the PLoS ONE launch in 2006.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.


  1. Suber, P., Open Access, Cambridge: MIT Press, 2012, p. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), 2016. Cited April 7, 2016.

  3. Wellen, R., Open Access, Megajournals, and MOOCs on the Political Economy of Academic Unbundling, 2013. Cited April 7, 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Norman, F., Megajournals, blog post, Occam’s typewriter, 2012. Cited April 7, 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Björk, B.C. and Catani, P., Peer review in megajournals compared with traditional scholarly journals: Does it make a difference?, Learned Publ., 2016, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 9–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Wikipedia. Mega journal, 2016. Cited April 9, 2016.

  7. Pinfield, S., Open-Access Mega-Journals (OAMJ): Initial Results Presented at 2016 RLUK Conference, 2016. Cited May 14, 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Björk, B.C., Have the “mega-journals” reached the limits to growth?, 2015. doi 10.7717/peerj.981. Cited April 21m 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  9. PLoS ONE. Journal Information–2016. Cited May 21, 2016.

  10. Binfield, P., PLoS ONE: New approaches and initiatives in the evolution of the academic journal, Against the Grain, 2009, vol. 21, no. 3. doi 10.7771/2380-176X.2309. Cited April 17, 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Esposito, J., Comment: PLoS’ Squandered Opportunity–Their Problems with the Path of Least Resistance, 2010. Cited May 14, 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Binfield, P., Open access megajournals–have they changed everything?, Creative Commons, 2013. Cited April 11, 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Björk, B.C. and Solomon, D.J., Developing an effective market for open access article processing charges, Report. Wellcome Trust, London, 2014. Cited April 11, 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  14. About Altmetrics: An Introduction to altmetrics and how they can be used, 2016. Cited May 3, 2016.

  15. Mazov, N.A. and Gureev, V.N., Alternative approaches to the assessment of scientific results, Vestn. Ross. Akad. Nauk, 2015, vol. 85, no. 2, pp. 115–122.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Davis, P., Cascading peer review–the future of open access?, Scholarly Kitchen Blog, 2010. Cited May 15, 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  17. BMJ. Frequently asked questions, 2014. Cited May 6, 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Beall's List of Predatory Publishers, 2016. Cited May 3, 2016.

  19. Ware, M. and Mabe, M., The STM Report: An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing, STM: International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers, 2015. 02 20 STM Report 2015.pdf. Cited May 5, 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Solomon, D. and Björk, B.C., A study of open access journals using article processing charges, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol., 2012, vol. 63, no. 8, pp. 1485–1495. doi 10.1002/asi.22673

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Björk, B.C., The hybrid model for open access publication of scholarly articles: A failed experiment?, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol., 2012, vol. 63, no. 8, pp. 1496–1504. doi 10.1002/asi.22709

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Research Information. SAGE open lowers APCs for HSS researchers, 2013. Cited May 4, 2016.

  23. Sugimoto, C., Lariviére, V., Ni, C., and Cronin, B., Journal acceptance rates: A cross-disciplinary analysis of variability and relationships with journal measures, J. Informetrics, 2013, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 897–906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Overview: Nature’s peer review trial, Nature, 2006. doi 10.1038/nature05535. Cited May 4, 2016.

  25. Chatterjee, A., Ghosh, A., and Chakrabarti, B., Universality of citation distributions for academic institutions and journals, 2014. Cited June 6, 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Solomon, D.J., A survey of authors publishing in four megajournals, 2014. doi 10.7717/peerj.365. Cited May 5, 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Open Access Mega Journals and the Future of Scholary Communication, 2016. Cited May 5, 2016.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to T. N. Domnina.

Additional information

Original Russian Text © T.N. Domnina, 2016, published in Nauchno-Tekhnicheskaya Informatsiya, Seriya 1: Organizatsiya i Metodika Informatsionnoi Raboty, 2016, No. 11, pp. 26–36.

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Domnina, T.N. A megajournal as a new type of scientific publication. Sci. Tech. Inf. Proc. 43, 241–250 (2016).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


  • open access
  • megajournals
  • peer review
  • altmetrics
  • article processing charges
  • role of scientific journal