This study explores the promotion of university journals published by Universitas Diponegoro (UNDIP), Indonesia, between 2018 and 2024. UNDIP managed 178 active journals spanning various subjects across 13 faculties. The analysis focused on four key indicators: the number of journals accredited by the Akreditasi Jurnal Nasional (ARJUNA), the accreditation grade in the Science and Technology Index (SINTA) database, the number of journals indexed in Scopus, and the number of abstract views and article downloads. Data collection involved searching literature databases, including SINTA and Scopus, and tracking hits and downloads on the web server. The findings indicate that the number of active journals increased from 136 in 2018 to 178 in 2024, with an average annual growth of 7 journals. The mentoring programs at UNDIP led to significant achievements in key performance indicators, with 106.5% of journals becoming accredited and 112.2% being indexed in Scopus. The annual growth rates for accredited and Scopus-indexed journals were 9.33 and 0.83, respectively. Additionally, the cumulative number of abstract views and article downloads increased by 47.14 million annually, attracting visitors from a broad range of countries. The mentoring programs and robust infrastructure at UNDIP have likely played crucial roles in enhancing the promotion and performance of the university’s journals, which are vital for journal promotion and the achievement of key performance indicators.
Purpose This study aimed to examine how educational researchers in Spain promoted the dissemination of scientific knowledge on Twitter/X as a platform and to contrast their approach with science influencers in the same country.
Methods Accounts on the Twitter/X service belonging to 210 Spanish researchers were analyzed, and their 2016–2020 tweets were compared to those of 38 Twitter/X influencers. Text mining techniques, sentiment and emotion analysis, network analysis, and the Kardashian index (K-index) were used in the study.
Results The results indicated a low academic presence of researchers (4.4%) on Twitter/X. The researchers shared 185,020 posts (38.7% original content and 61.3% retweets). A network analysis revealed low interconnectivity among researchers, with distinct clusters based on their interests or affiliations. The top influencers had strong connections with the news media. The researchers focused minimally on academic topics, while the influencers emphasized the dissemination of scientific findings. The impact of the researchers’ posts was minimal, with low K-index values, whereas the influencers had greater reach because of their follower base.
Conclusion When using Twitter/X, the researchers had a minimal impact on the dissemination of scientific information because they published few original posts and relied instead on retweets unrelated to their academic or research activities. Consequently, the researchers did not use Twitter/X as a tool for scientific communication, which limited the potential for forming new connections beyond their existing social and academic networks. Promoting informal learning that encompasses diverse knowledge and learning levels is crucial to fostering greater engagement and collaboration.
Purpose The landscape of academic publishing is experiencing significant transformations, characterized by an increasing volume of research output and the growth of interdisciplinary studies. These developments pose complex challenges for editorial boards, necessitating advanced strategies for submission management and the maintenance of publication standards.
Methods Utilizing network analysis, this study examined 1,865 articles from Applied Biological Chemistry and 1,081 articles from Journal of Applied Biological Chemistry, revealing distinct thematic and methodological orientations within these journals.
Results Applied Biological Chemistry demonstrated a pronounced focus on extraction processes, while Journal of Applied Biological Chemistry focused more on fermentation techniques and enzymatic studies. This differentiation highlights the journals’ unique contributions to the field of applied life sciences and underscores the diversity within academic publishing.
Conclusion The findings of this study not only shed light on the subtle distinctions between Applied Biological Chemistry and Journal of Applied Biological Chemistry but also emphasize the critical role of articulating the journal scope in detail in helping authors find the most suitable publication venues for their interdisciplinary research. By showcasing the utility of bibliometrics and network analysis, this research provides valuable insights for editorial boards to refine their management processes and for authors to navigate the complex landscape of academic publishing effectively, thereby enhancing the dissemination and impact of scholarly work.
Purpose This study investigates shifts in scientific research focus, particularly the decline in COVID-19-related research and the rapid growth of artificial intelligence (AI) publications.
Methods We analyzed publication data from the Web of Science, comparing yearly publication counts for COVID-19 and AI research. The study also tracked changes in the impact factors of leading journals like Science and Nature, alongside those of top AI journals over the past decade. Additionally, we reviewed the top 10 most cited articles in 2021 from Science and Nature and the most influential AI publications from the past five years according to Google Scholar. The impact trends of the top 100 AI journals in computer science were also explored.
Results The analysis reveals a noticeable decline in COVID-19 related publications as the pandemic urgency diminishes, contrasted with the continued rapid growth of AI research. Impact factors for prestigious journals have shifted, with AI journals increasingly dominating the academic landscape. The review of top-cited articles further emphasizes these trends.
Conclusion Our findings indicate a significant shift in research priorities, with AI emerging as a dominant field poised to address future challenges, reflecting the evolving focus of the scientific community.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Where did all the AI experts come from? They used to be virologists… Yana Suchikova, Natalia Tsybuliak AI & SOCIETY.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Artificial intelligence (AI)-powered chatbots are rapidly supplanting human-derived scholarly work in the fast-paced digital age. This necessitates a re-evaluation of our traditional research and publication ethics, which is the focus of this article. We explore the ethical issues that arise when AI chatbots are employed in research and publication. We critically examine the attribution of academic work, strategies for preventing plagiarism, the trustworthiness of AI-generated content, and the integration of empathy into these systems. Current approaches to ethical education, in our opinion, fall short of appropriately addressing these problems. We propose comprehensive initiatives to tackle these emerging ethical concerns. This review also examines the limitations of current chatbot detectors, underscoring the necessity for more sophisticated technology to safeguard academic integrity. The incorporation of AI and chatbots into the research environment is set to transform the way we approach scholarly inquiries. However, our study emphasizes the importance of employing these tools ethically within research and academia. As we move forward, it is of the utmost importance to concentrate on creating robust, flexible strategies and establishing comprehensive regulations that effectively align these potential technological developments with stringent ethical standards. We believe that this is an essential measure to ensure that the advancement of AI chatbots significantly augments the value of scholarly research activities, including publications, rather than introducing potential ethical quandaries.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Meeting report on the 8th Asian Science Editors’ Conference and Workshop 2024 Eun Jung Park Science Editing.2025; 12(1): 66. CrossRef
Research and publication ethics with generative artificial intelligence-assisted tools Cheol-Heui Yun Science Editing.2025; 12(1): 1. CrossRef
The assisted Technology dilemma: a reflection on AI chatbots use and risks while reshaping the peer review process in scientific research Helmi Ben Saad, Ismail Dergaa, Hatem Ghouili, Halil İbrahim Ceylan, Karim Chamari, Wissem Dhahbi AI & SOCIETY.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Plagiarism in the system of academic integrity in medical research (part 2) M.V. Krasnoselskyi, N.O. Artamonova, О.М. Sukhina, T.V. Rublova, Yu.V. Pavlichenko Український радіологічний та онкологічний журнал.2025; 33(1): 113. CrossRef
Generative AI, Research Ethics, and Higher Education Research: Insights from a Scientometric Analysis Saba Mansoor Qadhi, Ahmed Alduais, Youmen Chaaban, Majeda Khraisheh Information.2024; 15(6): 325. CrossRef
Publication Ethics in the Era of Artificial Intelligence Zafer Kocak Journal of Korean Medical Science.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Exploring the Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Research Ethics - A Systematic Review Gabriel Andrade-Hidalgo, Pedro Mio-Cango, Orlando Iparraguirre-Villanueva Journal of Academic Ethics.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Purpose Cancer is the leading cause of death in Korea, leading many investigators to focus on cancer research. We present the current practice of variable selection methods for multivariate analyses in cancer studies recently published in major oncology journals in Korea.
Methods We included observational studies investigating associations between exposures and outcomes using multivariate analysis from 10 major oncology journals published in 2021 in KoreaMed, a Korean electronic database. Two reviewers independently and in duplicate performed the reference screening and data extraction. For each study included in this review, we collected important aspects of the variable selection methods in multivariate models, including the study characteristics, analytic methods, and covariate selection methods. The descriptive statistics of the data are presented.
Results In total, 107 studies were included. None used prespecified covariate selection methods, and half of the studies did not provide enough information to classify covariate selection methods. Among the studies reporting selection methods, almost all studies only used data-driven methods, despite having study questions related to causality. The most commonly used method for variable selection was significance in the univariate model, with the outcome as the dependent variable.
Conclusion Half of the included studies did not provide sufficient information to assess the variable selection method, and most used a limited data-driven method. We believe that the reporting of covariate selection methods requires improvement, and our results can be used to educate researchers, editors, and reviewers to increase the transparency and adequacy of covariate selection for multivariable analyses in observational studies.
Purpose The evolving landscape of nursing research emphasizes inclusive representation. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has established guidelines to ensure the fair representation of various demographic variables, including age, sex, and ethnicity. This study aimed to evaluate the adherence of nursing journals indexed in MEDLINE or PubMed Central to the ICMJE’s directives on gender equity, given that journals indexed in MEDLINE and PubMed Central typically adhere to the ICMJE’s guidelines.
Methods A descriptive literature review methodology was employed to analyze 160 nursing journals listed in two databases as of July 28, 2023. The website of each journal was searched, and the most recent original article from each was selected. These articles were then evaluated for their alignment with the ICMJE guidelines on gender equity. Descriptive statistics were applied to categorize and enumerate the cases.
Results Of the articles reviewed from 160 journals, 115 dealt with human populations. Of these, 93 required a description of gender equity. Within this subset, 83 articles distinguished between the genders of human subjects. Gender-based interpretations were provided in 15 articles, while another 68 did not offer an interpretation of differences by gender. Among the 10 articles that did not delineate gender, only two provided a rationale for this omission.
Conclusion Among recent articles published in the nursing journals indexed in MEDLINE and PubMed Central, only 16.1% presented clear gender analyses. These findings highlight the need for editors to strengthen their dedication to gender equity within their editorial policies.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Academic journal website from the user’s perspective A. V. Silnichaya, D. I. Trushkov, A. Volkova, M. S. Konyaev Science Editor and Publisher.2024; 9(1): 2. CrossRef
Purpose Given the impact of information technologies, the research environment for humanities scholars is transforming into digital scholarship. This study presents a foundational investigation for developing digital scholarship (DS) research support services. It also proposes a plan for sustainable information services through examining the current status of DS in Korea, as well as accessing, processing, implementing, disseminating, and preserving interdisciplinary digital data.
Methods Qualitative interview data were collected from September 7 to 11, 2020. The interviews were conducted with scholars at the research director level who had participated in the DS research project in Korea. Data were coded using Nvivo 14, and cross-analysis was performed among researchers to extract central nodes and derive service elements.
Results This study divided DS into five stages: research plan, research implementation, publishing results, dissemination of research results, and preservation and reuse. This paper also presents the library DS information services required for each stage. The characteristic features of the DS research cycle are the importance of collaboration, converting analog resources to data, data modeling and technical support for the analysis process, humanities data curation, drafting a research data management plan, and international collaboration.
Conclusion Libraries should develop services based on open science and data management plan policies. Examples include a DS project liaison service, data management, datafication, digital publication repositories, a digital preservation plan, and a web archiving service. Data sharing for humanities research resources made possible through international collaboration will contribute to the expansion of new digital culture research.
Purpose This survey study aimed to investigate the current status, issues, and needs related to Clinical Endoscopy (CE), the official international journal of the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE).
Methods A 10-item survey was emailed to domestic KSGE members between May 1 and May 15, 2023. The results were analyzed using descriptive statistics.
Results In total, 216 complete responses were analyzed. Most respondents (46.8%) read CE once or twice monthly. The proportion of respondents who read the journal once or twice a year or did not read it at all was quite high, at 36.6%. The most informative article type was review articles (53%), and the least-read type was editorials (33%). Ninety-nine respondents (45.8%) stated that they did not want to submit their articles to CE because CE is not a Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) journal (38.4%). Eighty-nine respondents (41.2%) did not cite CE articles in their manuscripts. Furthermore, 41.2% of the respondents declined review invitations because they were too busy (73.0%). The two most common requests for CE were to increase the number of guidelines and review articles (38.0%) and to improve the journal quality (34.7%).
Conclusion Although CE is a representative journal of KSGE, the level of interest and concern for CE among society members was relatively low. Nonetheless, this survey offers valuable insights into the needs and current status of CE, paving the way for its further development. It is clear that more efforts and investments from the society and the editorial board are necessary.
Purpose This study aimed to ascertain the attitudes of Korean scholarly journal editors and publishers toward research data sharing policies and the publication of data papers through a survey.
Methods Between May 16 and June 16, 2023, a SurveyMonkey survey link was distributed to 388 societies, including 270 member societies of the Korean Council of Science Editors and 118 societies that used an e-submission system operated by the Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information. A total of 78 societies (20.1%) responded, from which 72 responses (18.6%) were analyzed after excluding invalid responses.
Results Out of the representatives of 72 journals, 20 editors or publishers (27.8%) declared a data sharing policy. Those journals that did not have such a policy often expressed uncertainty about their future plans regarding this issue. A common concern was a potential decrease in manuscript submissions, primarily due to the increased workload this policy might impose on editors and manuscript editors. Four respondents (5.6%) had published data papers, with two of them including this as a publication type in their author guidelines. Concerns about copyright and data licensing were cited as drawbacks to publishing data papers. However, the expansion of publication types and the promotion of data reuse were viewed as benefits.
Conclusion Korean scholarly journal editors’ and publishers’ attitudes toward data sharing policy and publishing data papers are not yet favorable. More training courses are needed to raise awareness of data sharing platforms and emphasize the need for research data sharing and data papers.