As the publishing industry evolves towards the predominant open access (OA) model, publishers are establishing OA journal power-houses, the OA mega-journals (OAMJs), which are wide in scope, with larger-than-usual editor boards, and that pump out large numbers of papers. OAMJs are thus able to accommodate a surge in submissions, or transfers from other journals within the same publisher’s fleet. OAMJs represent a simple but effective publishing model that can also be an effective business model. We question whether the peer review system is robust enough to accommodate for effective post-publication peer review in OAMJs. As examples, we examine Scientific Reports, PLOS One, Heliyon, F1000Research, PeerJ, and BMJ Open, as well as a possible developing OAMJ, eLife, for clues to the dynamics of OAMJs and the possible links to quality control via peer review or post-publication peer review. We also take a closer look at the economics of OA publishing that might be driving the expansion of the OAMJ market.

中文翻译：

---

开放获取大型期刊：质量、经济学和出版后同行评审基础设施

随着出版业向主要的开放获取 (OA) 模式发展，出版商正在建立 OA 期刊强国，即 OA 大型期刊 (OAMJ)，其范围广泛，编辑委员会比平常更大，并且抽出大量的论文。因此，OAMJ 能够适应提交激增的情况，或从同一出版商车队中的其他期刊转移。OAMJ 代表了一种简单但有效的发布模型，它也可以是一种有效的商业模型。我们质疑同行评审系统是否足够强大以适应 OAMJ 中有效的发表后同行评审。例如，我们研究了 Scientific Reports、PLOS One、Heliyon、F1000Research、PeerJ 和 BMJ Open，以及可能正在开发的 OAMJ、eLife、获取 OAMJ 动态的线索以及通过同行评审或出版后同行评审与质量控制的可能联系。我们还仔细研究了可能推动 OAMJ 市场扩张的 OA 出版经济学。