Evaluation and Comparison of the Academic Quality of Open-Access Mega Journals and Authoritative Journals: Disruptive Innovation Evaluation.

BACKGROUND

Some scholars who are skeptical about open-access mega journals (OAMJs) have argued that low-quality papers are often difficult to publish in more prestigious and authoritative journals, and OAMJs may be their main destination.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate the academic quality of OAMJs and highlight their important role in clinical medicine. To achieve this aim, authoritative journals and representative OAMJs in this field were selected as research objects. The differences between the two were compared and analyzed in terms of their level of disruptive innovation. Additionally, this paper explored the countries and research directions for which OAMJs serve as publication channels for disruptive innovations.

METHODS

In this study, the journal information, literature data, and open citation relationship data were sourced from Journal Citation Reports (JCR), Web of Science (WoS), InCites, and the OpenCitations Index of PubMed Open PMID-to-PMID citations (POCI). Then, we calculated the disruptive innovation level of the focus paper based on the local POCI database.

RESULTS

The mean Journal Disruption Index (JDI) values for the selected authoritative journals and OAMJs were 0.5866 (SD 0.26933) and 0.0255 (SD 0.01689), respectively, showing a significant difference. Only 1.48% (861/58,181) of the OAMJ papers reached the median level of disruptive innovation of authoritative journal papers (MD). However, the absolute number was roughly equal to that of authoritative journals. OAMJs surpassed authoritative journals in publishing innovative papers in 24 research directions (eg, Allergy), accounting for 40.68% of all research directions in clinical medicine. Among research topics with at least 10 authoritative papers, OAMJs matched or exceeded MD in 35.71% of cases. The number of papers published in authoritative journals and the average level of disruptive innovation in each country showed a linear relationship after logarithmic treatment, with a correlation coefficient of -0.891 (P<.001). However, the number of papers published in OAMJs in each country and the average level of disruptive innovation did not show a linear relationship after logarithmic treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

While the average disruptive innovation level of papers published by OAMJs is significantly lower than that of authoritative journals, OAMJs have become an important publication channel for innovative research in various research directions. They also provide fairer opportunities for the publication of innovative results from limited-income countries. Therefore, the academic community should recognize the contribution and value of OAMJs to advancing scientific research.