The diverse niches of megajournals : specialism within generalism
Article [Version of Record]
Publisher(s)
WileyAbstract(s)
Over the past decade, megajournals have expanded in popularity and established a
legitimate niche in academic publishing. Leveraging advantages of digital publishing, megajournals are characterized by large publication volume, broad interdisciplinary scope, and peer-review filters that select primarily for scientific soundness
as opposed to novelty or originality. These publishing innovations are complementary and competitive vis-à-vis traditional journals. We analyze how megajournals
(PLOS One, Scientific Reports) are represented in different fields relative to prominent generalist journals (Nature, PNAS, Science) and “quasi-megajournals” (Nature
Communications, PeerJ). Our results show that both megajournals and prominent
traditional journals have distinctive niches, despite the similar interdisciplinary
scopes of such journals. These niches—defined by publishing volume and disciplinary diversity—are dynamic and varied over the relatively brief histories of the
analyzed megajournals. Although the life sciences are the predominant contributor
to megajournals, there is variation in the disciplinary composition of different megajournals. The growth trajectories and disciplinary composition of generalist
journals—including megajournals—reflect changing knowledge dissemination and
reward structures in science.