Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Science Editing : Science Editing

OPEN ACCESS
SEARCH
Search

Search

Page Path
HOME > Search
3 "Medical writing"
Filter
Filter
Article category
Keywords
Publication year
Authors
Funded articles
Original Articles
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
  • 9,518 View
  • 188 Download
  • 2 Web of Science
  • 3 Crossref
AbstractAbstract 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
Status of digital standards in Korean medical journals in 2016
Geum Hee Jeong, Sun Huh
Sci Ed. 2016;3(2):100-104.   Published online August 20, 2016
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.73
  • 10,597 View
  • 154 Download
  • 13 Web of Science
  • 14 Crossref
AbstractAbstract PDFSupplementary Material
This study aimed to characterize the current status of a variety of digital standards in medical journals published in Korea in 2016. A total of 256 journals listed as member journals of the Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors were searched to evaluate the following items: an independent journal homepage domain; an e-submission system; the use of digital object identifiers (DOIs), CrossMark, and FundRef; the availability of text and data mining; the presence of Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) information, an open access declaration, and the language of the journal. The search was carried out from July 29 to 30, 2016. Independent journal homepage domains were found for 190 of the 256 journals (74.1%). Of the journals, 216 were equipped with an e-submission system (84.4%), and 218 journals used DOIs (85.2%). CrossMark and FundRef were used in 105 journals (41.0%), text and data mining were available for 31 journals (11.1%), ORCID identifiers were present in 24 journals (9.4%), and an open access declaration according to a Creative Commons license was present for 199 journals (77.8%). The number of English-language journals was 130 (50.8%). Open access journals and English-language journals were found to have implemented more digital standards than non-open access journals and Korean-language journals respectively. The above results demonstrate that digital standards have been rapidly implemented by a considerable number of medical journals in Korea. In order to facilitate the more active promotion of journals to the international level, more journals should utilize these standards. The use of full-text JATS (journal article tag suite) XML is recommended for the easy adoption of DOIs, CrossMark, FundRef, and ORCID.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • Medical and health sciences academics’ behaviours and attitudes towards open access publishing in scholarly journals: a perspective from South Korea
    Kyoung Hee Joung, Jennifer Rowley, Laura Sbaffi
    Information Development.2019; 35(2): 191.     CrossRef
  • Is it possible to foster first-rate publishers through a journal publishing cooperative in Korea?
    Sun Huh
    Archives of Plastic Surgery.2019; 46(01): 3.     CrossRef
  • Bronze, free, or fourrée: an open access commentary
    Eamon Costello
    Science Editing.2019; 6(1): 69.     CrossRef
  • Status of digital standards, licensing types, and archiving policies in Asian open access journals registered in Directory of Open Access Journals
    Soon Kim, Hyungwook Choi
    Science Editing.2019; 6(1): 41.     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
  • How much progress has Blood Research made since the change of the journal title in 2013
    Sun Huh
    Blood Research.2018; 53(2): 95.     CrossRef
  • Journal metrics of Clinical and Molecular Hepatology based on the Web of Science Core Collection
    Sun Huh
    Clinical and Molecular Hepatology.2018; 24(2): 137.     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
  • Is Diabetes & Metabolism Journal Eligible to Be Indexed in MEDLINE?
    Sun Huh
    Diabetes & Metabolism Journal.2018; 42(6): 472.     CrossRef
  • The great rise ofIntestinal Researchas an international journal 3 years after its language change to English as evidenced by journal metrics
    Geum Hee Jeong, Sun Huh
    Intestinal Research.2017; 15(1): 1.     CrossRef
  • The rapid internationalization of Annals of Pediatric Endocrinology & Metabolism as evidenced by journal metrics
    Sun Huh
    Annals of Pediatric Endocrinology & Metabolism.2017; 22(2): 77.     CrossRef
  • Clinical and Experimental Vaccine Research's promotion to internationally competitive journal evidenced by journal metrics
    Sun Huh
    Clinical and Experimental Vaccine Research.2017; 6(2): 67.     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
  • Bibliometric and content analysis of medical articles in the PubMed database published by North Korean authors from 1997 to July 2017
    Geum Hee Jeong, Sun Huh
    Science Editing.2017; 4(2): 70.     CrossRef
Current status of Science Citation Index Expanded listing of Korean medical journals and effect of PubMed electronic publication ahead of print to their impact factors
Jae Jun Shim, Byung-Ho Kim
Sci Ed. 2016;3(2):94-99.   Published online August 20, 2016
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.72
  • 16,006 View
  • 150 Download
AbstractAbstract PDF
This year marked the twentieth anniversary of the Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors (KAMJE). The number of member journals has increased from 105 to 257 since its inception in 1996. In the same period, the number of journals listed in the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) has increased from zero to 35. The average journal impact factor (JIF) that was initially 0.13 has now increased by more than tenfold on average to 1.45 as of 2014. Many KAMJE journals that are not indexed in the SCIE are putting their best effort towards eventual inclusion. Following listing with SCIE, however, editors have turned their attention towards the JIF and have shown interest in early online publication as a means of improving the JIF. The current status of PubMed electronic publication ahead of print (EAP) was surveyed among KAMJE journals that are indexed in the SCIE, and the impact of this EAP on the improvement of the JIF was investigated. Based on the survey, more than half of the members have started or are planning on implementing EAP. However, these efforts were found to be still in their infancy, and they have been insufficient to serve as a basis for scientific analysis. Since the sample size is too small and the implementation period too short to statistically analyze the effects of early publication on the JIF, a case-by-case approach was taken. Based on case studies, it is difficult to draw conclusions yet about whether online early publication enhances the JIF.

Science Editing : Science Editing