Growth and challenges in biomedical scientific publishing: the phenomenon of mega-journals

Abstract The landscape of academic scientific publishing has seen relentless growth, with the number of articles published and indexed on Web of Science exceeding three million in 2023 alone. This increase in both the number of publications and authors has significantly impacted scientific research, enhancing our collective knowledge. In response to the surge in authorship and the shift towards open-access publishing-where authors bear the cost of publication-information has become more accessible to researchers, educators, and policymakers, fueling a lucrative global industry with annual revenues estimated at 30 billion euros. However, the system faces challenges, such as slow peer review times, potential biases towards significant findings, and issues with reviewer recruitment and compensation. Mega-journals like PLOS One and Scientific Reports have emerged in the early 2000s and 2010s, respectively, focusing on methodological rigor over novelty, publishing high volumes of articles. In 2022, mega-journals published a quarter of all biomedical literature, reflecting a shift towards specific publication scopes and capturing larger market shares. These journals charge authors publication fees in return for open access, benefiting from minimal operational costs as they do not produce in-house materials or print editions. Recent concerns include vulnerabilities to poor scientific conduct and potential biases in publication practices. Some sectorial mega-journals offer faster, often perceived as less rigorous, peer review processes. Notably, the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health was removed by Clarivate from the Web of Science Core Collection database, with potential wide ranging impact, especially for authors who have published in these journals (e.g., loss of the impact factor, less visibility) explored in the following presentation.