ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025
Evaluation and Comparison of the Academic Quality of Open-Access Mega Journals and Authoritative Journals: Disruptive Innovation Evaluation.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSome 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.
objectiveThis 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.
methodsIn 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.
resultsThe 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
conclusionsWhile 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.