Science Editing

Original Article

Trends in publications on scientific misconduct from 2000 to 2024: a Scopus-based bibliometric study: Jesús Enrique Quezada Castro, María del Pilar Quezada Castro; Sci Ed. 2026;13(1):14-21. Published online January 29, 2026; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.389

286 View
27 Download

Abstract PDF: Purpose
Scientific research is intended to be a transparent and reproducible process. However, scientific misconduct distorts reality and presents fraudulent findings as truth. This bibliometric study aimed to map trends in scientific output and to identify the leading authors, journals, keywords, and documents addressing scientific misconduct between 2000 and 2024.
Methods
Scientific production indexed in the Scopus database was analyzed. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 3,536 documents were selected. The data were processed using Biblioshiny and Microsoft Excel.
Results
The annual growth rate of publications on scientific misconduct was estimated at 5.33%, with 2024 recording the highest number of indexed documents in Scopus. Collaboration networks were led by the United States, the United Kingdom, and China. The most frequently used keywords were research integrity and scientific misconduct. Retraction was identified as a key control mechanism adopted by journals to uphold research ethics.
Conclusion
Over the past 4 years, scientific output on scientific misconduct has increased, with Q1 Scopus journals playing a central role in establishing international standards for detecting and eliminating research fraud.

Training Material

A novel “conceive, design, implement, operate (CDIO)” framework for evaluating artificial intelligence–generated scholarly manuscripts: Aji Prasetya Wibawa, Anik Nur Handayani, Prananda Anugrah, Agung Bella Putra Utama; Sci Ed. 2025;12(1):70-75. Published online November 14, 2024; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.348

4,246 View
108 Download
1 Web of Science
1 Crossref

This paper introduces a novel application of the “conceive, design, implement, operate (CDIO)” framework to improve the thoroughness and organization of academic editorial review processes. It demonstrates that the CDIO framework, originally applied to engineering education, can also be adapted for reviewing creative and interdisciplinary ideas. The adaptation of the CDIO framework for editorial review is already evident in scholarly publications, and this paper extends its application to include reviews of content produced by artificial intelligence (AI) platforms. The “conceive” stage focuses on developing clear research questions and objectives that align with the key moments of article conception. It ensures that content produced by AI begins with an ethical scientific foundation and maintains this integrity throughout the process. The “design” stage emphasizes maintaining scientific accuracy and clarity of presentation. It considers all critical manuscript design elements and incorporates methods to evaluate the originality and rationality of AI-generated data and analysis. The “implementation” stage is concerned with the effective communication of findings, providing insights into how the manuscript is perceived. It is crucial for data generation or tool usage involving AI. The “operate stage” involves analyzing the findings and their overall impact on the field, ensuring a comprehensive assessment from all perspectives when AI-generated content is integrated into academic discourse, which has broader implications. By applying the CDIO framework innovatively, this paper offers a systematic and comprehensive method for conducting editorial reviews. This ensures that manuscripts generated by AI are subjected to the same rigorous scrutiny as those authored by humans. This approach improves the quality, transparency, and reputation of scholarly publications. We examine each stage of the CDIO process, achieving uniformity and clarity, and providing a more precise evaluation of both traditional and AI-assisted academic research.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Utilization of ChatGPT in educational environmental research: Assessing teachers’ evaluation skills on AI-generated data for educational environmental research
Maria Christoforaki, Evangelia Mavrikaki, Apostolia Galani
Journal of Teacher Development and Education.2025; 3(2): 120. CrossRef

Case Study

Mentorship program to elevate journal quality and rankings in Indonesia: a case study: Ferry Efendi, Hery Purnobasuki, Dessy Harisanty, Diyah Alinia Oktariningtias, Sarah Khairunnisa; Sci Ed. 2024;11(2):149-154. Published online August 20, 2024; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.344

4,277 View
145 Download
2 Web of Science
2 Crossref

Abstract PDF

This article explores the best practices of mentorship programs in all journals at Universitas Airlangga. The university has established a journal mentoring team, as mandated by the rector’s regulation, which is responsible for guiding journals through preparation, submission, management, policy, and overall quality improvement. A case study was conducted to explore the mentoring mechanisms at Universitas Airlangga. Mentors were selected from among experienced editors at the university, each with a distinguished background in managing their own journals. The mentorship program successfully led to the indexing of 14 journals in Scopus, one in Web of Science (WoS), 85 in the Science and Technology Index (SINTA), and 60 in Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). The strategies used can be shared with other universities to assist their journal editors. The mentorship program at Universitas Airlangga has significantly improved the quality and international visibility of its academic journals. This is evidenced by the successful indexing of numerous journals in prestigious databases including Scopus, WoS, SINTA, and DOAJ. The structured mentoring, clear targets, and comprehensive institutional support were instrumental in achieving these results. This model serves as a scalable best practice for other universities seeking to improve their journal quality and global standing.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Standards, ethics, and digital systems in Indonesian scientific journal governance: a thematic analysis of policy documents
Irwansyah
Science Editing.2026; 13(1): 36. CrossRef
The promotion of university journals published by Universitas Diponegoro, Indonesia, from 2018 to 2024: a descriptive study
Eko Didik Widianto, Hadiyanto, Teddy Mantoro, Raka Sindu Wardoyo
Science Editing.2025; 12(1): 43. CrossRef

Training Material

ChatGPT for editors: enhancing efficiency and effectiveness: Yunhee Whang; Sci Ed. 2024;11(1):84-90. Published online February 20, 2024; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.332

6,433 View
226 Download
6 Web of Science
3 Crossref

Abstract PDF

This tutorial examines how ChatGPT can assist journal editors in improving the efficiency and effectiveness of academic publishing. It highlights ChatGPT’s key characteristics, focusing on the use of “Custom instructions” to generate tailored responses and plugin integration for accessing up-to-date information. The tutorial presents practical advice and illustrative examples to demonstrate how editors can adeptly employ these features to improve their work practices. It covers the intricacies of developing advanced prompts and the application of zero-shot and few-shot prompting techniques across a range of editorial tasks, including literature reviews, training novice reviewers, and improving language quality. Furthermore, the tutorial addresses potential challenges inherent in using ChatGPT, which include a lack of precision and sensitivity to cultural nuances, the presence of biases, and a limited vocabulary in specialized fields, among others. The tutorial concludes by advocating for an integrated approach, combining ChatGPT’s technological advancements with the critical insight of human editors. This approach emphasizes that ChatGPT should be recognized not as a replacement for human judgment and expertise in editorial processes, but as a tool that plays a supportive and complementary role.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

The emergence of large language models as tools in literature reviews: a large language model-assisted systematic review
Dmitry Scherbakov, Nina Hubig, Vinita Jansari, Alexander Bakumenko, Leslie A Lenert
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association.2025; 32(6): 1071. CrossRef
Efficacy of AI-Text Detection Tools in Distinguishing Student-Produced, AI-Edited, and AI-Generated Essays
Jessie S. Barrot, Ma. Rita R. Aranda
Technology, Knowledge and Learning.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
¿Cómo está transformando la inteligencia artificial la comunicación científica? Desafíos, oportunidades y el papel de los actores involucrados: una revisión de alcance
Jairo Buitrago-Ciro, Estela Morales Campos, César Leonardo Villamizar Romero
Investigación Bibliotecológica: archivonomía, bibliotecología e información.2025; 39(104): 111. CrossRef

Original Articles

Adherence to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors–recommended gender equity policy in nursing journals listed in MEDLINE or PubMed Central: a descriptive study: Eun Jeong Ko, Geum Hee Jeong; Sci Ed. 2024;11(1):33-37. Published online February 20, 2024; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.328

4,869 View
106 Download
1 Crossref

Abstract PDF

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

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; Sci Ed. 2023;10(2):141-148. Published online August 17, 2023; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.316

4,770 View
251 Download

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material: 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.

Development of a decision-support tool to quantify authorship contributions in clinical trial publications: Sam T. Mathew, Habeeb Ibrahim Abdul Razack, Prasanth Viswanathan; Sci Ed. 2022;9(1):22-29. Published online February 20, 2022; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.259

8,738 View
372 Download

Abstract PDF: Purpose
This study aimed to develop a decision-support tool to quantitatively determine authorship in clinical trial publications.
Methods
The tool was developed in three phases: consolidation of authorship recommendations from the Good Publication Practice (GPP) and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) guidelines, identifying and scoring attributes using a 5-point Likert scale or a dichotomous scale, and soliciting feedback from editors and researchers.
Results
The authorship criteria stipulated by the ICMJE and GPP recommendations were categorized into 2 Modules. Criterion 1 and the related GPP recommendations formed Module 1 (sub-criteria: contribution to design, data generation, and interpretation), while Module 2 was based on criteria 2 to 4 and the related GPP recommendations (sub-criteria: contribution to manuscript preparation and approval). The two modules with relevant sub-criteria were then differentiated into attributes (n = 17 in Module 1, n = 12 in Module 2). An individual contributor can be scored for each sub-criterion by summing the related attribute values; the sum of sub-criteria scores constituted the module score (Module 1 score: 70 [contribution to conception or design of the study, 20; data acquisition, 7; data analysis, 27; interpretation of data, 16]; Module 2 score: 50 [content development, 27; content review, 18; accountability, 5]). The concept was integrated into Microsoft Excel with adequate formulae and macros. A threshold of 50% for each sub-criterion and each module, with an overall score of 65%, is predefined as qualifying for authorship.
Conclusion
This authorship decision-support tool would be helpful for clinical trial sponsors to assess and provide authorship to deserving contributors.

The opinions of Indian dental faculty members on harmonizing manuscript preparation and the submission guidelines of journals: Gadde Praveen, Harsha GVD, Swati G Naidu, Dharani ASD; Sci Ed. 2022;9(1):15-21. Published online February 20, 2022; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.258

9,309 View
281 Download
3 Web of Science
3 Crossref

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material

Purpose
Authors of scholarly writing are underrepresented in discussions about improving the academic publishing system. The objective of this study was to assess the possibility of harmonizing manuscript preparation and the submission guidelines of journals by assessing the opinions of dental faculty members who worked in the state of Andhra Pradesh, India.
Methods
A cross-sectional survey of 1,286 participants from 16 dental schools in Andhra Pradesh was conducted from March 15, 2021 to April 15, 2021. The questionnaire addressed the participants’ demographic details and perspectives on the guidelines for manuscript preparation and the need to harmonize those guidelines with the publication process. The online questionnaire was generated using Google Forms and consisted of six dichotomous, one multiple-choice, and seven Likert scale items. Descriptive statistics were obtained.
Results
Of the 894 (69.5%) dental faculty members who responded, 448 (50.1%) were not aware of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors’ guidelines for manuscript preparation and submission. During the manuscript revision process, 792 (95.5%) had experienced difficulty with the variation in author guidelines for each journal, especially the guidelines for formatting tables, reference style, and citation of references in-text. The idea of a standardized template for manuscript preparation and submission was supported by 800 respondents (86.7%).
Conclusion
Dental faculty members in India experienced difficulty in manuscript preparation for medical journals due to the differing editorial policies among journals. Therefore, a standardized template providing uniformity in style and format is needed.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Investigating Strategies for Writing and Publishing a Scientific Article in an International Journal
Pervaiz Yaseeni, Mohammad Qaseem Kashaf, Fahim Rahimi
Nangarhar University Social Science Journal.2024; 1(01): 1. CrossRef
Research publications of Australia’s natural history museums, 1981–2020: Enduring relevance in a changing world
Tayla A. Green, Pat A. Hutchings, Fiona R. Scarff, James R. Tweedley, Michael C. Calver, Claudia Noemi González Brambila
PLOS ONE.2023; 18(6): e0287659. CrossRef
Why consistent, clear, and uniform instructions for authors are required
Jean Iwaz
Science Editing.2022; 9(2): 142. CrossRef

Korean editors’ and researchers’ experiences with preprints and attitudes towards preprint policies: Hyun Jung Yi, Sun Huh; Sci Ed. 2021;8(1):4-9. Published online February 20, 2021; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.223

9,194 View
211 Download
10 Web of Science
12 Crossref

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material

Purpose
This study investigated editors’ and researcher’s experiences with preprints and their attitudes towards preprint policies in Korea.
Methods
From December 30, 2019 to January 10, 2020, a Google Forms survey was mailed to members of the Korean Council of Science Editors and the Korean Federation of Science and Technology Societies. The 16 survey items included two demographic items, six items on experience with preprints, five 5-point Likert-scale items on attitudes towards preprints, and three items on advantages and disadvantages.
Results
Out of 365 respondents, 56 had deposited their manuscripts on preprint servers, while 49 stated that they allowed preprints in their journals. More than half of the respondents expressed favorable attitudes towards prioritizing preprint deposition, promotion of open access, rapid feedback on preprints, earlier citations, and evidence of research work. Responders in engineering had more experience with the concept of preprints, and were more likely to have heard about preprint servers and preprint deposition by other researchers, than those in medicine. Half of the editors disagreed with the need for preprints, for reasons including a lack of scientific integrity, stealing ideas/scooping data, priority issues regarding research ideas, and copyright problems.
Conclusion
The above results showed that preprints are still not actively used in Korea. Although experiences with preprints were not widespread, more than half of the respondents showed favorable attitudes towards preprints. More of a consensus should emerge for preprint policies to be accepted by editors in Korea.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Researchers' Views on Preprints and Open Access Publishing: Results From a Free‐Answer Survey of Japanese Molecular Biologists
Harufumi Tamazawa, Kazuki Ide, Kazuhisa Kamegai
Learned Publishing.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Preprint policies in Spanish academic journals: analysis of the clarity of instructions to authors
Cristobal Urbano, Cecilia Rozemblum, Guillermo Banzato
Journal of Documentation.2026; : 1. CrossRef
Preprint servers and journals: rivals or allies?
Natascha Chtena, Juan Pablo Alperin, Stephen Pinfield, Alice Fleerackers, Irene V. Pasquetto
Journal of Documentation.2025; 81(4): 847. CrossRef
A dataset of the awareness, usage, and appeals of Chinese humanities and social science scholars and journal editors regarding preprint platforms
Yinglun YANG, Chunlan XIONG, Jing SHI, Jing MA, Ni ZHANG, Hanwen ZHANG, Ming XU, Chenglong ZHANG, Xiaoting CHEN, Sijia LU
China Scientific Data.2025; 10(3): 1. CrossRef
Monitoring of open science perception by Russian researchers
Lyudmila B. Shevchenko
Scientific and Technical Libraries.2025; (9): 102. CrossRef
The use and acceptability of preprints in health and social care settings: A scoping review
Amanda Jane Blatch-Jones, Alejandra Recio Saucedo, Beth Giddins, Robin Haunschild
PLOS ONE.2023; 18(9): e0291627. CrossRef
Promotion to Top-Tier Journal and Development Strategy of the Annals of Laboratory Medicine for Strengthening its Leadership in the Medical Laboratory Technology Category: A Bibliometric Study
Sun Huh
Annals of Laboratory Medicine.2022; 42(3): 321. 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
The evolution, benefits, and challenges of preprints and their interaction with journals
Pippa Smart
Science Editing.2022; 9(1): 79. CrossRef
Preprint citation practice in PLOS
Marc Bertin, Iana Atanassova
Scientometrics.2022; 127(12): 6895. CrossRef
Attitudes and practices of open data, preprinting, and peer-review—A cross sectional study on Croatian scientists
Ksenija Baždarić, Iva Vrkić, Evgenia Arh, Martina Mavrinac, Maja Gligora Marković, Lidija Bilić-Zulle, Jadranka Stojanovski, Mario Malički, Sergi Lozano
PLOS ONE.2021; 16(6): e0244529. CrossRef
Document Network and Conceptual and Social Structures of Clinical Endoscopy from 2015 to July 2021 Based on the Web of Science Core Collection: A Bibliometric Study
Sun Huh
Clinical Endoscopy.2021; 54(5): 641. CrossRef

Data journals: types of peer review, review criteria, and editorial committee members’ positions: Sunkyung Seo, Jihyun Kim; Sci Ed. 2020;7(2):130-135. Published online August 20, 2020; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.207

12,062 View
196 Download
7 Web of Science
6 Crossref

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material

Purpose
This study analyzed the peer review systems, criteria, and editorial committee structures of data journals, aiming to determine the current state of data peer review and to offer suggestions.
Methods
We analyzed peer review systems and criteria for peer review in nine data journals indexed by Web of Science, as well as the positions of the editorial committee members of the journals. Each data journal’s website was initially surveyed, and the editors-in-chief were queried via email about any information not found on the websites. The peer review criteria of the journals were analyzed in terms of data quality, metadata quality, and general quality.
Results
Seven of the nine data journals adopted single-blind and open review peer review methods. The remaining two implemented modified models, such as interactive and community review. In the peer review criteria, there was a shared emphasis on the appropriateness of data production methodology and detailed descriptions. The editorial committees of the journals tended to have subject editors or subject advisory boards, while a few journals included positions with the responsibility of evaluating the technical quality of data.
Conclusion
Creating a community of subject experts and securing various editorial positions for peer review are necessary for data journals to achieve data quality assurance and to promote reuse. New practices will emerge in terms of data peer review models, criteria, and editorial positions, and further research needs to be conducted.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

What Are Journals and Reviewers Concerned About in Data Papers? Evidence From Journal Guidelines and Review Reports
Xinyu Wang, Lei Xu
Learned Publishing.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Peer review of data papers: Does it achieve expectations for facilitating data sharing and reuse?
Chenyue Jiao, Peter T. Darch
Journal of Information Science.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Unleashing the power of AI in science-key considerations for materials data preparation
Yongchao Lu, Hong Wang, Lanting Zhang, Ning Yu, Siqi Shi, Hang Su
Scientific Data.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Dissemination effect of data papers on scientific datasets
Hong Jiao, Yuhong Qiu, Xiaowei Ma, Bo Yang
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology.2024; 75(2): 115. CrossRef
The data paper as a sociolinguistic epistemic object: A content analysis on the rhetorical moves used in data paper abstracts
Kai Li, Chenyue Jiao
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology.2022; 73(6): 834. CrossRef
Korean researchers’ motivations for publishing in data journals and the usefulness of their data: a qualitative study
Jungyeoun Lee, Jihyun Kim
Science Editing.2021; 8(2): 145. CrossRef

Case Study

Analysis of Korean journals rejected by Scopus since 2011: Hyunju Jang; Sci Ed. 2020;7(1):50-54. Published online February 20, 2020; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.189

7,342 View
157 Download
1 Crossref

Abstract PDF

This paper aims to provide publishers and societies who plan to apply for their journals to be listed in Scopus with critical guidelines to evaluate their performance from an objective, globally-informed perspective. It presents a qualitative case study of how applications of Korean journals to Scopus have been evaluated over a 9-year period (2011–2019). A content analysis was conducted of 106 applications that were rejected by the Content Selection and Advisory Board, according to a combination of 14 quantitative and qualitative selection criteria. This case study was used to categorize instances of failure and to illustrate practical strategies for local journals to use when applying to Scopus based on the lessons to be learned from rejected cases. The results of the analysis show that local journals should enhance the quality of the articles they publish, review why the journal should be considered international, and clearly address editorial policies and the concept, scope, and strategies of the journal.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Editorial Predictors of the Discontinuation of Open Access Scientific Journals in Scopus: An Analysis from DOAJ
Jean Paul Simon Castillo-Nuñez, Carlos Alberto Minchon-Medina, Angie Clemente-Vega, Nohelia Rosa Vallenas-Aroni, Marile Lozano-Lozano, Myriam Báez-Sepúlveda
Publications.2026; 14(1): 2. CrossRef

Review

History of the Scopus Expert Content Selection and Advisory Committee of Korea: Hyungsun Kim; Sci Ed. 2020;7(1):6-10. Published online February 20, 2020; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.183

8,475 View
122 Download
2 Web of Science
2 Crossref

Abstract PDF

With the objective of improving the quality of Korean journals and elevating them to international standards, the National Research Foundation of Korea, in consultation with Elsevier, formed the Scopus Expert Content Selection and Advisory Committee-Korea (ECSAC-Korea) as a local selection committee in August 2012. The committee reviews Korean journals for Scopus indexing and recommends them to the Scopus Content Selection and Advisory Board. In September 2019, ECSAC-Korea became part of the Korean Council of Science Editors (KCSE). This article describes the current status of Scopus indexing in Korea and the history, organizational structure, and role of ECSAC-Korea as part of the KCSE. The article also introduces the members of ECSAC-Korea and the KCSE steering committee for Scopus ECSAC-Korea, who have been active since September 2019.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Role of academic publishers in 10 years: a perspective from the Chairman of Elsevier
Youngsuk Chi
Science Editing.2022; 9(1): 46. CrossRef
Presidential address: How to cope with the present environment of scholarly journal publishing
Sun Huh
Science Editing.2020; 7(1): 1. CrossRef

Case Study

Compliance of education journals in Vietnam with the minimum criteria to be indexed in the ASEAN Citation Index and Scopus: Trung Tran, Loc Thi My Nguyen, Thanh Thi Nghiem, Hien Thi Thu Le, Cuong Huu Nguyen, Thuy Phuong La, Trung Tien Nguyen, Hang Thi-Thu Nguyen; Sci Ed. 2019;6(2):142-147. Published online August 19, 2019; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.175

10,977 View
147 Download
4 Web of Science
1 Crossref

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material

This study aimed at elucidating the present situation of scholarly journals published in Vietnam according to the minimum criteria to be indexed in the ASEAN Citation Index (ACI) and Scopus, with the goal of suggesting development strategies for scholarly journals in Vietnam. From the 387 journals accredited by the Vietnamese State Council for Professorship, 13 education journals were arbitrarily selected, and their compliance with the five minimum criteria for the ACI (peer review, timeliness, abstracts in English, references in Roman script, and a website in English) and the six minimum criteria for Scopus (peer review, timeline, abstracts in English, references in Roman characters, Electronic International Standard Serial Number [ISSN], and publication ethics) were assessed. Two of the 13 journals were eligible to be indexed in the ACI, while none fulfilled the minimum criteria to be indexed in Scopus. An urgent task for the editors of those journals is to establish an informative journal homepage in English that provides basic information on the journal. Then, an Electronic ISSN can be obtained from the ISSN International Center. Furthermore, the following steps are suggested for journal promotion: establishment of appropriate editorial policies and publication ethics procedures, improvement of research integrity, enhancement of the journals’ reputation in the international scientific community, and improvement of the online publishing system by adopting a journal manuscript management system. To achieve those goals, financial support from the Vietnamese government will be invaluable.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Exploring state and institutional support for sustainable scholarly journal publishing
Maryna Zhenchenko, Olha Dunaievska
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL STUDIES.2025; 18(3): 144. CrossRef

Original Article

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

10,446 View
178 Download
14 Web of Science
18 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

Research data policy: a library and information science publishers’ perspective
Kavya Asok, Dinesh Kumar Gupta, Prashant Shrivastava
Quality & Quantity.2025; 59(2): 995. CrossRef
Analyzing Data Sharing Policies in Library and Information Science: Journal Metrics, Open Access Status, and Publisher Volume
Eungi Kim, Kristine Joy Tabogoc, Jang Won Chae
Publications.2024; 12(4): 39. CrossRef
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

Review

The 30-year publication history of Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences: Jong Kyu Ha, Cheol Heui Yun; Sci Ed. 2019;6(1):10-18. Published online February 20, 2019; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.150

11,403 View
134 Download
1 Web of Science
1 Crossref

Abstract PDF

Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences (AJAS) is the official journal of the Asian-Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies and was founded in 1988 in Korea. The journal was created to serve the animal industry and academia in the Asian-Australasian region through the efficient publication and distribution of scientific information on animal sciences. At the beginning, there was neither a real need expressed by member countries nor a firm belief in the success of such publication activity in Asia. However, a few dedicated individuals, led by Prof. In K. Han, the first editor-in-chief, were able to turn AJAS into one of the most respected global journals in animal sciences. Over the last three decades, AJAS has achieved notable development in the quantity and quality of the articles and their publication process. AJAS initially published four issues per year; this number grew to six issues in 1995-1998, eight issues in 1999, and 12 issues from 2000 onward. Overall, the journal has published more than 5,700 articles. Total citation frequency in 1997, when AJAS was first indexed by SCIE, was lower than 100, but by 2017, it was more than 4,000. Similar improvement was seen in the two-year impact factor, which was 0.094 in 1997 and rose to 1.243 by 2017. This article aims to introduce the development of the AJAS editorial system, manuscript submission, publication activities, and citation frequency. Additionally, a special development, called the AJAS 2020 program, is introduced as a reference for other journals.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Leadership of AAAP scientists and journals in animal science: achievements, limitations, and challenges
Jong K. Ha
Animal Bioscience.2023; 36(1): 1. CrossRef

Training Material

How to romanize Korean characters in international journals: Sun Huh; Sci Ed. 2017;4(2):80-85. Published online August 16, 2017; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.100

20,814 View
305 Download

Abstract PDF: For editors and manuscript editors, the romanization of Korean characters is a topic that should be understood thoroughly, because Korean proper nouns have become more widely used worldwide due to phenomena such as Hallyu (the Korean wave). In this report, I describe the 2 major romanization systems used in Korea: the Korean government’s romanization system and the McCune-Reischauer system. I also describe the transliteration guidelines presented in a variety of reference styles, such as the CSE (Council of Science Editors), ACS (American Chemical Society), AMA (American Medical Association), APA (American Psychological Association), IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) styles and the NLM (National Library of Medicine) style guide. I found that 2 journals have adopted the Korean government’s romanization system, while 10 use the McCune-Reischauer system. Other journals do not specifically mention a romanization system. Editors should select a romanization system and use it consistently. When presenting a reference that includes romanized text, the journal’s house style should be followed, based on international reference citation styles. Chinese characters in documents published in Korea should be romanized according to the Korean pronunciation.

Case Study

Analysis of the results of the first implementation of the Korea Manuscript Editors Certification: Hyun Jung Yi, Jae Hwa Chang, Yoon Joo Seo; Sci Ed. 2017;4(1):34-38. Published online February 20, 2017; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.87

12,289 View
161 Download
4 Web of Science
5 Crossref

Abstract PDF

In the field of international scholarly journal publishing, manuscript editing has been established as an essential component of the publication process. As the necessity of this process has increased, the Korean Council of Science Editors has consistently provided education for training professional manuscript editors, and has worked to implement a manuscript editor certification system. Starting in 2014, the Korean Council of Science Editors thoroughly conducted background research and advanced analysis in preparation for such a system. Subsequently, a committee of experts was formed to develop and simulate an examination for this certification. This process culminated in the first manuscript editor certification examination, which was held in November 2016 and resulted in 40 initial Korea Manuscript Editors Certification holders. Examinations for the Korea Manuscript Editors Certification are scheduled to be held annually. The establishment of this certification system will contribute to strengthening individual capacities and further developing science journal publication in Korea by expanding the field of manuscript editing. Ultimately, this system will contribute to the promotion of Korean scientific journals to the level of prominent international journals.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Presidential address: How to cope with the present environment of scholarly journal publishing
Sun Huh
Science Editing.2020; 7(1): 1. CrossRef
Search engines and software for manuscript editing
Yeonwook Kim
Science Editing.2020; 7(1): 88. CrossRef
Recent advances of medical journals in Korea and and further development strategies: Is it possible for them to publish Nobel Prize-winning research?
Sun Huh
Journal of the Korean Medical Association.2018; 61(9): 524. CrossRef
Reflections on the Basic Manuscript Editors’ Training 2017
Hakbong Lee
Science Editing.2017; 4(2): 93. CrossRef
How to successfully list a journal in the Social Science Citation Index or Science Citation Index Expanded
Sun Huh
Korean Journal of Medical Education.2017; 29(4): 221. CrossRef

Training Material

Peer review golden rules and good practice checklist: Irene Hames; Sci Ed. 2016;3(1):36-42. Published online February 19, 2016; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.61

54,444 View
487 Download
3 Web of Science
3 Crossref

Abstract PDF

This is a republication of Appendix 1, The Golden Rules and the Peer-Review Good Practice Checklist, from the author’s book, Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals: guidelines for good practice, published in 2007 by Wiley-Blackwell in association with ALPSP (the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers), with the permission of the author and publisher (ISBN: 978-1-4051-3159-9, http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/ productCd-1405131594.html).

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

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
Do’s and Don’ts for a Good Reviewer of Scientific Papers: A Beginner’s Brief Decalogue
Miltos K. Lazarides, George S. Georgiadis, Nikolaos Papanas
The International Journal of Lower Extremity Wounds.2020; 19(3): 227. CrossRef
Writing highly effective reviews of a scientific manuscript
Garry J. Scrimgeour, Shelley D. Pruss
Freshwater Science.2016; 35(4): 1076. CrossRef

Original Articles

Towards the implementation of a system for manuscript editor certification: Hyun Jung Yi, Hye-Min Cho, Hee Kyung Chung, Hwan Tae Ahn, Myung-Soon Kim, Yoon Joo Seo; Sci Ed. 2016;3(1):3-12. Published online February 19, 2016; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.56

16,196 View
144 Download
2 Web of Science
2 Crossref

Abstract PDF

Style and format are important criteria for evaluating a journal and indexing it in major databases. In Korean science, technology, and medical journals, interest in manuscript editing has increased over the past seven to eight years, and the responsibilities of manuscript editors have expanded as well. However, since no clear standards for the roles and qualifications for manuscript editors are yet available, a formal certification system is needed to establish appropriate standards and to provide professional training. To identify ways of developing a manuscript editor certification program in Korea, this study investigated similar certification programs in and outside the country and surveyed 195 Korean editors, manuscript editors, publishers, and medical librarians. The survey revealed that manuscript editors were necessary (mean score of 4.38 on a five-point Likert scale, with a score of 5 indicating strong agreement), and that their main contributions were efficiently managing the editorial board, improving the accuracy of references, and accelerating the editing process. The respondents were also positive about the possibility of implementing a manuscript editor certification; 45.1% showed interest in becoming certified, and 47.1% reported interest in hiring a certified manuscript editor. Regarding the system for issuing certification, respondents favored a professional training course (53.1%), validation of work experience (27.1%), or an examination (16.8%). This study concludes that it is essential to establish a formal certification program to train manuscript editors properly, and an examination system is the most efficient and suitable method for managing the certification process.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Leaving behind fond memories, I am stepping away from my role as editor of the Ewha Medical Journal after finalizing this issue's theme
Sun Huh
Ewha Medical Journal.2025; 48(4): e51. CrossRef
Analysis of the results of the first implementation of the Korea Manuscript Editors Certification
Hyun Jung Yi, Jae Hwa Chang, Yoon Joo Seo
Science Editing.2017; 4(1): 34. CrossRef

Opinions of Korean science editors on open access policies, editorial difficulties, and government’s support for publishing: Sun Huh, Hye-Min Cho, Hyungsun Kim; Sci Ed. 2015;2(2):55-58. Published online August 14, 2015; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.44

19,801 View
123 Download
5 Web of Science
5 Crossref

Abstract PDF

The Korean government has supported scholarly scientific journal publishing since 1971 through the Korean Federation of Science and Technologies (hereafter the Federation). To ensure that this funding is used as efficiently as possible, the views of science editors should be considered. This study measured the opinions of Korean science editors on open access policies, difficulties during editing, and the government’s support for publishing. From November 28 to December 10 of 2013, web survey invitations were emailed to 368 journal editors listed by the Federation. The web survey tool Surveymonkey was used to create a questionnaire that consisted of ten items, including the research category for each journal. Out of the 368 editors, 82 responded to the survey (22.3%). Sixty-nine editors (84.1%) had already accepted the open access or free access policy. Of the 13 editors of journals without open/free access policies, seven hoped to adopt a policy within three years. The most difficult tasks in journal publishing were adding a journal to international databases, operating with an inadequate budget, and recruiting professional manuscript editors. Editors want the Federation to increase budgets to cover full-text extensible markup language production costs, to provide guidelines for adding journals to international databases, and to provide programs for training professional manuscript editors and a plagiarism detection system. Most science editors in Korea have already adopted an open/free access policy. Training professional manuscript editors, using plagiarism detection system, and producing full-text extensible markup language should be considered as important items for journal publishing support from the Federation.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Perceived awareness, benefits, and strategies of Pakistani editors regarding open-access journal publishing
Muhammad Zahid Raza, Muhammad Rafiq, Saira Hanif Soroya
Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Exploring state and institutional support for sustainable scholarly journal publishing
Maryna Zhenchenko, Olha Dunaievska
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL STUDIES.2025; 18(3): 144. CrossRef
Readiness of Pakistani journals for open access publishing
Muhammad Zahid Raza, Muhammad Rafiq, Saira Hanif Soroya
The Electronic Library .2024; 42(5): 795. CrossRef
Development of a diagnostic framework and its application to open access journal publishing in Korea
Nayon Kim, JungWon Yoon, Jae Yun Lee, Kyoung Hee Joung, Hyekyong Hwang, Seo Young Bai, EunKyung Chung
Learned Publishing.2023; 36(3): 379. CrossRef
Equality, equity, and reality of open access on scholarly information
Jeong-Wook Seo, Hosik Chung, Tae-Sul Seo, Youngim Jung, Eun Seong Hwang, Cheol-Heui Yun, Hyungsun Kim
Science Editing.2017; 4(2): 58. CrossRef

Review

Peer review at the beginning of the 21st century: Irene Hames; Sci Ed. 2014;1(1):4-8. Published online February 13, 2014; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.2014.1.4

25,622 View
166 Download
6 Web of Science
7 Crossref

Abstract PDF

Vigorous debate currently surrounds peer review, and polarized views are often expressed. Despite criticisms about the process, studies have found that it is still valued by researchers, with rigorous peer review being rated by authors as the most important service they expect to receive when paying to have their papers published open access. The expectations of peer review and what it can achieve need, however, to be realistic. Peer review is also only as good and effective as the people managing the process, and the large variation in standards that exists is one of the reasons some of the research and related communities have become critical of and disillusioned with the traditional model of peer review. The role of the editor is critical. All editors must act as proper editors, not just moving manuscripts automatically through the various stages, but making critical judgements throughout the process to reach sound and unbiased editorial decisions. New models and innovations in peer review are appearing. Many issues, however, remain the same: rigorous procedures and high ethical standards should be in place, those responsible for making decisions and managing the process need to be trained to equip them for their roles and responsibilities, and systems need to be adapted to deal with new challenges such as the increasing amounts of data being generated and needing to be taken into account when assessing the validity and soundness of work and the conclusions being drawn.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

The challenge of recruiting peer reviewers from one medical journal’s perspective
Christopher J. Peterson, Cynthia Orticio, Kenneth Nugent
Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings.2022; 35(3): 394. CrossRef
Effective Peer Review: Who, Where, or What?
Russell P. Hall
JID Innovations.2022; 2(6): 100162. CrossRef
JID Innovations and Peer Review
Russell P. Hall
JID Innovations.2021; 1(3): 100056. CrossRef
Enhancing reproducibility: Failures from Reproducibility Initiatives underline core challenges
Kevin Mullane, Michael Williams
Biochemical Pharmacology.2017; 138: 7. CrossRef
Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers
Tony Ross-Hellauer, Arvid Deppe, Birgit Schmidt, Jelte M. Wicherts
PLOS ONE.2017; 12(12): e0189311. CrossRef
Editing and publishing scholarly journals in the internet age
Kihong Kim
Science Editing.2014; 1(1): 2. CrossRef
The big picture: scholarly publishing trends 2014
Pippa Smart
Science Editing.2014; 1(2): 52. CrossRef

First
Prev
Page of 1
Next
Last

Search