The aim of phase 3 of the OAMJ project is to investigate publishers’ motivations and strategies in the context of mega-journals. For this phase, we conducted a series of interviews with 31 senior editors and publishers, with representatives from both organisations publishing mega-journal and non-mega-journal publishers. We asked them to give us their views about open-access mega-journals, with questions exploring their definitions of the term, their motivations for launching (or not launching) OAMJ titles, strategies regarding OAMJ business models and the role of the journal within broader publisher portfolios, and the place of OAMJs the wider scholarly communication landscape.
All interviews have now been coded, using the NVivo software for qualitative data analysis. The transcripts total almost 250,000 words, and we have coded 2,834 individual passages. It’s safe to call this a massive dataset, and the analysis process is now underway.
Here is a preliminary snapshot of the interviews, in the form of a word cloud (generated in NVivo). Terms such as ‘journal’, ‘publish’, and ‘mega’ are all words that you would expect to see; but terms such as ‘community’, ‘guess’, ‘trying’, ‘interesting’ or ‘change’ perhaps hint at the complexities that will emerge .
We will keep this blog updated as the analysis progresses. In the meantime we’d love to hear your thoughts.