Science Editing

Review

An algorithm for the selection of reporting guidelines: Soo Young Kim; Sci Ed. 2023;10(1):13-18. Published online November 14, 2022; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.287

2,290 View
271 Download
2 Web of Science
2 Crossref

A reporting guideline can be defined as “a checklist, flow diagram, or structured text to guide authors in reporting a specific type of research, developed using explicit methodology.” A reporting guideline outlines the bare minimum of information that must be presented in a research report in order to provide a transparent and understandable explanation of what was done and what was discovered. Many reporting guidelines have been developed, and it has become important to select the most appropriate reporting guideline for a manuscript. Herein, I propose an algorithm for the selection of reporting guidelines. This algorithm was developed based on the research design classification system and the content presented for major reporting guidelines through the EQUATOR (Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research) network. This algorithm asks 10 questions: “is it a protocol,” “is it secondary research,” “is it an in vivo animal study,” “is it qualitative research,” “is it economic evaluation research,” “is it a diagnostic accuracy study or prognostic research,” “is it quality improvement research,” “is it a non-comparative study,” “is it a comparative study between groups,” and “is it an experimental study?” According to the responses, 16 appropriate reporting guidelines are suggested. Using this algorithm will make it possible to select reporting guidelines rationally and transparently.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions received the Journal Impact Factor, 4.4 for the first time on June 28, 2023
Sun Huh
Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions.2023; 20: 21. CrossRef
Why do editors of local nursing society journals strive to have their journals included in MEDLINE? A case study of the Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing
Sun Huh
Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing.2023; 29(3): 147. CrossRef

Essay

Why do journals publish research protocols?: Soo Young Kim; Sci Ed. 2022;9(2):146-148. Published online August 19, 2022; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.280

1,788 View
223 Download

PDF

Original Articles

How many retracted articles indexed in KoreaMed were cited 1 year after retraction notification: Soo Young Kim, Hyun Jung Yi, Hye-Min Cho, Sun Huh; Sci Ed. 2019;6(2):122-127. Published online August 19, 2019; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.172

7,035 View
127 Download
8 Web of Science
7 Crossref

Abstract PDF

Purpose: It aimed to investigate how many retracted articles indexed in KoreaMed were cited in both the Scopus and the Korea Medical Citation Index (KoMCI) databases and to investigate whether the frequency of post-retraction citations was different according to the presence of a retraction mark.
Methods
Retracted articles from the KoreaMed database were collected on January 28, 2016. Scopus and KoMCI were searched for post-retraction citations, which were defined as citations 1 year after the retraction, excluding retraction-related citations.
Results
The 114 retracted articles were found in KoreaMed. The proportion of retracted articles in KoreaMed, the Korean medical journal database, through January 2016 was 0.04% (114/256,000). On the journal homepage, a retraction mark was present for 49 of the 114 retracted articles. Of the 114 retracted articles, 45 were cited in Scopus 176 times. Of the 176 citations, 109 (of 36 retracted articles) were post-retraction citations. The number of citations in KoMCI, except for citations of retraction notices, was 33 (of 14 retracted articles). Of those citations, the number of post-retraction citations in KoMCI was 14 (of 8 retracted articles). The presence of a retraction mark did not influence post-retraction citations (P>0.05). Post-retraction citations were frequent in the range of 1 to 3 years.
Conclusion
Post-retraction citations that were found in both Scopus and the KoMCI occurred frequently for retracted articles in KoreaMed. Adoption of Crossmark is recommended as one choice to prevent post-retraction citations.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Expert-recommended biomedical journal articles: Their retractions or corrections, and post-retraction citing
Peiling Wang, Jing Su
Journal of Information Science.2024; 50(1): 17. CrossRef
Exploring perception of retraction based on mentioned status in post-retraction citations
Xiaojuan Liu, Chenlin Wang, Dar-Zen Chen, Mu-Hsuan Huang
Journal of Informetrics.2022; 16(3): 101304. CrossRef
Inconsistent and incomplete retraction of published research: A cross-sectional study on Covid-19 retractions and recommendations to mitigate risks for research, policy and practice
Geoff Frampton, Lois Woods, David Alexander Scott, Eleanor Ochodo
PLOS ONE.2021; 16(10): e0258935. CrossRef
Continued use of retracted papers: Temporal trends in citations and (lack of) awareness of retractions shown in citation contexts in biomedicine
Tzu-Kun Hsiao, Jodi Schneider
Quantitative Science Studies.2021; 2(4): 1144. CrossRef
Does retraction after misconduct have an impact on citations? A pre–post study
Cristina Candal-Pedreira, Alberto Ruano-Ravina, Esteve Fernández, Jorge Ramos, Isabel Campos-Varela, Mónica Pérez-Ríos
BMJ Global Health.2020; 5(11): e003719. CrossRef
Comprehensive Analysis of Retracted Publications in Dentistry: A 23-Year Review
Shannon Samuel, Joe Mathew Cherian, Abi M. Thomas, Stefano Corbella
International Journal of Dentistry.2020; 2020: 1. CrossRef
Continued post-retraction citation of a fraudulent clinical trial report, 11 years after it was retracted for falsifying data
Jodi Schneider, Di Ye, Alison M. Hill, Ashley S. Whitehorn
Scientometrics.2020; 125(3): 2877. CrossRef

Current and planned adoption of data sharing policies by editors of Korean scholarly journals: Soo Young Kim, Hyun Jung Yi, Sun Huh; Sci Ed. 2019;6(1):19-24. Published online February 20, 2019; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.151

6,799 View
171 Download
13 Web of Science
16 Crossref

Abstract PDF

Purpose: This study analyzed the present status of data sharing polices and attitudes towards such policies through a web-based survey of editors of scholarly journals published in Korea.
Methods
From December 26, 2018 to January 3, 2019, a survey was distributed to 1,055 persons listed in the member directories of both the Korean Council of Science Editors and the Korean Federation of Science & Technology Societies. The survey contained four items on subjects’ information, three items that gathered information about the journals, and two further items on reasons for adopting or not adopting a data sharing policy and further opinions about such policies.
Results
Of the 100 respondents (from 100 journals), 13 stated that their journals had already adopted a data sharing policy. The strength of the policy was recommendation-only in 10 of those 13 journals. The most frequent reason for adopting a data sharing policy was to follow international trends. The repository sites were the Harvard Dataverse for two journals and Mendeley Data for one. The most common reasons for not adopting a data sharing policy were a lack of knowledge on data sharing, the possibility that submitters would not want to share their data, and the questionable effect of data sharing on scientific development.
Conclusion
Data sharing policies were uncommon among Korean scholarly journals. The advantages and disadvantages of adopting such policies should be discussed more actively among editors and researchers. Furthermore, data sharing infrastructure and training courses are required for data sharing policies to be established in scholarly journals in Korea.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Korean scholarly journal editors’ and publishers’ attitudes towards journal data sharing policies and data papers (2023): a survey-based descriptive study
Hyun Jun Yi, Youngim Jung, Hyekyong Hwang, Sung-Nam Cho
Science Editing.2023; 10(2): 141. CrossRef
Congratulations on Child Health Nursing Research becoming a PubMed Central journal and reflections on its significance
Sun Huh
Child Health Nursing Research.2022; 28(1): 1. CrossRef
Research data policies of journals in the Chinese Science Citation Database based on the language, publisher, discipline, access model and metrics
Yu Wang, Beibei Chen, Liangbin Zhao, Yuanxiang Zeng
Learned Publishing.2022; 35(1): 30. CrossRef
Ten Tips for Performing Your First Peer Review: The Next Step for the Aspiring Academic Plastic Surgeon
Martin Frendø, Andreas Frithioff, Steven Arild Wuyts Andersen
Archives of Plastic Surgery.2022; 49(04): 538. CrossRef
Status and factors associated with the adoption of data sharing policies in Asian journals
Jihyun Kim, Seo Young Bai
Science Editing.2022; 9(2): 97. CrossRef
Open Data Policies among Library and Information Science Journals
Brian Jackson
Publications.2021; 9(2): 25. CrossRef
The Journal Citation Indicator has arrived for Emerging Sources Citation Index journals, including the Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions, in June 2021
Sun Huh
Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions.2021; 18: 20. CrossRef
How to Deal with the Concept of Authorship and the Approval of an Institutional Review Board When Writing and Editing Journal Articles
Sun Huh
Laboratory Medicine and Quality Assurance.2020; 42(2): 63. CrossRef
Position of Ultrasonography in the scholarly journal network based on bibliometrics and developmental strategies for it to become a top-tier journal
Sun Huh
Ultrasonography.2020; 39(3): 238. CrossRef
Status of the data sharing policies of scholarly journals published in Brazil, France, and Korea and listed in both the 2018 Scimago Journal and Country Ranking and the Web of Science
Geum Hee Jeong
Science Editing.2020; 7(2): 136. CrossRef
How Annals of Dermatology Has Improved the Scientific Quality and Ethical Standards of its Articles in the Two-Year Period since October 2018
Sun Huh
Annals of Dermatology.2020; 32(5): 353. CrossRef
Two international public platforms for the exposure of Archives of Plastic Surgery to worldwide researchers and surgeons: PubMed Central and Crossref
Sun Huh
Archives of Plastic Surgery.2020; 47(5): 377. CrossRef
Data sharing policies of journals in life, health, and physical sciences indexed in Journal Citation Reports
Jihyun Kim, Soon Kim, Hye-Min Cho, Jae Hwa Chang, Soo Young Kim
PeerJ.2020; 8: e9924. CrossRef
Compliance of “Principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing” in academic society published journals
Hyung Wook Choi, Ye Jin Choi, Soon Kim
Science Editing.2019; 6(2): 112. CrossRef
Recent trends in medical journals’ data sharing policies and statements of data availability
Sun Huh
Archives of Plastic Surgery.2019; 46(06): 493. CrossRef
Strategie postępowania z danymi badawczymi w polskich i zagranicznych czasopismach reprezentujących nauki historyczne
Adam Jachimczyk
Studia Medioznawcze.2019; 21(1): 475. CrossRef

Comparison of the patterns of duplicate articles between KoreaMed and PubMed journals published from 2004 to 2009 according to the categories of duplicate publications: Soo Young Kim, Chong Woo Bae, Hye-Min Cho, Sun Huh; Sci Ed. 2018;5(1):44-48. Published online February 19, 2018; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.117

9,469 View
188 Download
2 Web of Science
3 Crossref

Abstract PDF

This study compared the patterns of duplicate articles between KoreaMed and PubMed journals based on a division of duplicate publications into the 4 categories of ‘copy,’ ‘salami’ (fragmentation), ‘imalas’ (disaggregation), and ‘others,’ as well as in terms of the 11 subcategories suggested by Bae et al., which further elaborate on those 4 main categories. We hypothesized that these 2 groups of articles would show different patterns of duplication. Duplicate publications were identified in a random sample of 5% of the articles from the KoreaMed database published between 2004 and 2009, while all articles with the publication type of ‘duplicate publication’ were selected from PubMed over the same period. The selected articles were classified based on the 4 categories and 11 subcategories of duplicate publications, and the data from the 2 groups were compared. A total of 108 articles were selected from KoreaMed and 45 articles were obtained from PubMed. The category of copy was the most common in both databases. The next most frequent pattern was imalas (disaggregation). Pattern of duplicate publication between 2 databases showed no correlation (P = 0.8754). Although the 108 articles from KoreaMed were allocated to all 11 Bae et al.’s subcategories, those from PubMed were allocated to only 8. The above results showed that the articles in the 2 databases had different patterns of duplication, as defined in terms of the 11 subcategories. The use of these 11 subcategories will help journal editors to develop an appropriate framework for considering a variety of duplication types.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Recent Issues in Medical Journal Publishing and Editing Policies: Adoption of Artificial Intelligence, Preprints, Open Peer Review, Model Text Recycling Policies, Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing 4th Version, and Country Names in Titles
Sun Huh
Neurointervention.2023; 18(1): 2. CrossRef
Analysis of duplicated publications in Russian journals
Yury V. Chekhovich, Andrey V. Khazov
Journal of Informetrics.2022; 16(1): 101246. CrossRef
How many retracted articles indexed in KoreaMed were cited 1 year after retraction notification
Soo Young Kim, Hyun Jung Yi, Hye-Min Cho, Sun Huh
Science Editing.2019; 6(2): 122. CrossRef

Meeting Reports

Report on the 2016 Short Course for Journal Editors at the Council of Science Editors annual meeting: Soo Young kim; Sci Ed. 2016;3(2):116-118. Published online August 20, 2016; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.77

8,953 View
121 Download

PDF

Report on the 2014 Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers international conference: Soo Young Kim; Sci Ed. 2015;2(1):38-40. Published online February 28, 2015; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.36

12,704 View
94 Download

PDF

First
Prev
Page of 1
Next
Last

Search