Megajournal mismanagement: Manuscript decision bias and anomalous editor activity at PLOS ONE
Abstract
Since their emergence just a decade ago, nearly 2% of scientific research is now published by megajournals, representing a major industrial shift in the production of knowledge. Such high-throughput production stresses several aspects of the publication process, including the editorial oversight of peer-review. As the largest megajournal, PLOS ONE has relied on a single-tier editorial board comprised of ∼7000 active academics, who thereby face...
Paper Details
Title
Megajournal mismanagement: Manuscript decision bias and anomalous editor activity at PLOS ONE
Published Date
Nov 1, 2019
Journal
Volume
13
Issue
4
Pages
100974 - 100974
Citation AnalysisPro
You’ll need to upgrade your plan to Pro
Looking to understand the true influence of a researcher’s work across journals & affiliations?
- Scinapse’s Top 10 Citation Journals & Affiliations graph reveals the quality and authenticity of citations received by a paper.
- Discover whether citations have been inflated due to self-citations, or if citations include institutional bias.
Notes
History