近幾年以來開放近用(Open access)的期刊蔚為流行,許多傳統版權制期刊的出版社也開始有開放近用的子期刊,例如Nature Publishing Group的「Scientific Reports」(2014Impact Factor5.578)、知名心臟領域期刊Circulation的「JAHA – Journal of the American Heart Association」(2014Impact Factor5.117)以及醫學四大期刊之一的British Medical Journal旗下的「BMJ Open」(2014Impact Factor2.562),都是以純粹線上出版的形式存在於學術社群。

其中,PLOS ONE身為巨量期刊(Mega journal)的龐然大物,光2014年就出版超過3萬篇文章,規模是一般期刊的100倍以上,光PLOS ONE此家期刊就佔了世上所有開放進用文章80%的量(可參考此文章的表3https://peerj.com/articles/981.pdf)。筆者在近期有機會協助審閱文章,注意到PLOS ONE的建議審稿策略,覺得非常有意義,這同時也解釋了為什麼PLOS ONE的接受率(Acceptance rate)高達69

 

以下是PLOS ONE寄給審稿者的信件內容

=====================================================================

Dear Dr. Lin,

 

Thank you for agreeing to review manuscript PONE-D-17-0xxxx, entitled "Titlexxxxxxxxxxxxx: a meta analysis of 11 trials" for PLOS ONE.

 

We would also like to remind you about the PLOS ONE editorial criteria, which focus on the technical aspects of a study rather than more subjective evaluations of issues like 'impact' or 'interest level'. In essence, PLOS ONE wishes to publish ANY report of scientific research that will make a valid contribution to the scientific record.

 

To be accepted for publication in PLOS ONE, research articles must satisfy the following criteria:

 

1. The study presents the results of primary scientific research.

2. Results reported have not been published elsewhere.

3. Experiments, statistics, and other analyses are performed to a high technical standard and are described in sufficient detail.

4. Conclusions are presented in an appropriate fashion and are supported by the data.

5. The article is presented in an intelligible fashion and is written in standard English.

6. The research meets all applicable standards for the ethics of experimentation and research integrity.

7. The article adheres to appropriate reporting guidelines and community standards for data availability.

 

Therefore, your evaluation of this submission and your recommendation to the academic editor should focus on the scientific soundness of the work.Concerns that the work is lacking in novelty, impact, or interest should not be taken into account. Please visit http://www.plosone.org for more information about PLOS ONE.

=====================================================================

 

由以上內容可知,PLOS ONE重視的是「學術文章的技術層面」的審核,而希望審稿者不要重視「影響層面」(Impact)與「興趣層面」(Interest level)。基本上,只要能對於整個科學領域能夠有具體貢獻的任何性質的文章,PLOS ONE都願意出版。PLOS ONE希望審查者只要注重該文章的「在科學上的穩固性」(Scientific soundness),而不要注重主題的新奇性(Novelty)、對領域的影響程度與以及引發興趣關注的程度。

多數傳統版權制期刊除了注重於「主題的新奇性」與「對領域的影響程度」之外,不同等級的期刊其實在心中也有一把尺,例如我們若不自量力把文章投到NEJM2015Impact Factor59.558),可能會立刻被以「Not suitable」的理由被拒。相對地,投稿者也會惦量自己文章的斤兩,有經驗的研究者在研究一開始就會已經設定好目標,例如:「這篇文章就是要投3~5分的期刊」或是「目標設在<20%的期刊」。

然而,在投開放近用的期刊時,研究者不需要自我設限,不需要考慮這個題目是否會引發別人的興趣、不需要考慮題目是否熱門、也不需要考慮這篇文章對臨床生態的衝擊程度。研究者要考慮的主要有以下幾點:(1)科學技術層面、(2)統計分析方法是否有效,研究方法與結果是否足以支撐結論、(3)資料可獲性(Data availability)是否符合期刊政策以及(4)英文的使用是否清晰。

因此對於剛出道的研究者,若尚未在特定領域耕耘出一定成績,剛開始的幾篇研究可以考慮開放近用的期刊,特別是PLOS ONE

 

延伸閱讀:

1)蔡依橙醫師:Open access 期刊觀察:PLOS 系統」

2)蔡依橙醫師:PLOS ONE:我該不該投這本期刊?」

3)蔡依橙醫師:PLOS ONE 以外的 mega-journals:以PeerJ Scientific Reports 為例」

4)陳天心醫師:「為什麼要投open access?不斷加速的互聯網時代醫學研究的必然結果。」

52015年發表在PeerJ Have the “mega-journals” reached the limits to growth?

6 2016年發表在PLOS ONE Open-Access Mega-Journals: A BibliometricProfile

72017年發表在Journal of Documentation的:Open-access mega-journals: The future of scholarlycommunication or academic dumping ground? A review

8Stephen Pinfield2016年的評論:Mega-journals: the future, a stepping stone to it or a leap into the abyss?

9David Matthews2016年的評論:Would-be heavyweights: the rise of open access mega-journals

10)維基百科    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mega_journal

 

創作者介紹

晨晰統計部落格新站(統計、SPSS、BIG DATA討論園地)

晨晰部落格新站 發表在 痞客邦 PIXNET 留言(0) 人氣()