Science Editing

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

823 View
66 Download

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.

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

2,599 View
142 Download

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.

Original Articles

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

2,620 View
225 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

5,848 View
347 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.

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

7,692 View
174 Download
13 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.2024;[Epub] 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

First
Prev
Page of 1
Next
Last

Search