Science Editing

Original Articles

Retraction of global biomedical publications from 2014 to 2023 based on the Retraction Watch Database: a bibliometric study: Ao Xie, Wei Wang; Sci Ed. 2025;12(2):152-158. Published online August 1, 2025; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.374

901 View
39 Download

Abstract PDF: Purpose
Retractions occur predominantly in the biomedical field worldwide, posing direct and severe harm to humanity. This study aimed to analyze the characteristics of retracted biomedical publications from 2014 to 2023 based on the Retraction Watch Database.
Methods
We retrieved records of global retracted publications in the fields of biology and medicine from 2014 to 2023. We analyzed the type, title/keywords, annual number, authors’ countries, journals, causes of retraction, and time to retraction for these papers.
Results
Our data show that the number of retracted papers in biology and medicine continued to increase from 2014 to 2023. The predominant type of retracted paper was the research article (69.0%), with “cancer” as the most frequent word in titles and keywords. The largest number of retracted papers originated from China (49.4%), followed by the United States (6.7%) and India (6.3%). Most journals with retracted papers were affiliated with Hindawi Publishing. The major causes of retraction included concerns related to study results, data, peer review, reference citation, ethical approval, and figures/images. There was a significant difference in time to retraction across the years from 2014 to 2023 (F=154.78, P<0.01). Additionally, the mean time to retraction decreased by 89.2 days per year from 2014 to 2023, and overall, the mean time to retraction showed a declining trend over these years (R2=0.947, P<0.05).
Conclusion
Biomedical societies should improve preventive mechanisms to address academic misconduct.

Article processing charge costs of open access articles indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection from 2019 to 2023 by publisher and country: a secondary publication: Youngim Jung, June Young Lee, Jungwoo Lee, Byoung-Goon An, Wan Jong Kim, Jinseo Park; Sci Ed. 2025;12(2):114-123. Published online July 30, 2025; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.370

1,239 View
81 Download

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material: Purpose
The open access (OA) movement has significantly improved access to academic content. However, the financial burden of article processing charges (APCs) and the lack of pricing transparency remain major concerns. This study aims to estimate APC costs by publisher and country, focusing on Korea, to inform policy decisions.
Methods
We combined datasets from ScholCommLab (2019–2023), KESLI (2018–2024), and Web of Science (WoS). These sources were merged by aligning APC data with WoS-indexed articles, adjusting for missing values and currency differences. The final dataset included over 4.4 million records, enabling detailed analysis of APC expenditures by publisher and country.
Results
From 2019 to 2023, global APC spending increased, with clear regional disparities. Italy showed the highest compound annual growth rate in APC costs at 34.17%, followed by moderate to high growth in Korea, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Korea and Italy allocated large proportions of APC spending to MDPI—38.71% and 37.53%, respectively—raising concerns about publisher dominance and potential quality issues. In contrast, Germany and the United Kingdom established national agreements aimed at controlling APC costs.
Conclusion
This study underscores the growing global burden of APCs and the need for cost-management strategies. Policymakers should consider targeted financial support and promote equitable publishing models. Adoption of the diamond OA model—which removes APCs for authors and provides free access to readers—offers a sustainable and inclusive path forward for academic publishing, addressing both financial and ethical challenges in the current OA landscape.

Case Study

Accessibility, language, discipline, and indexing status of university journals that use Open Journal Systems in Indonesia: a case study: Maria Lamury, John Willinsky; Sci Ed. 2025;12(2):190-196. Published online April 30, 2025; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.367

2,454 View
61 Download

Abstract PDF: This case study examines the characteristics of university journals in Indonesia on the country’s most used platform, Open Journal Systems (OJS), following a decade of rapid growth in scholarly publishing. A sample of 558 journals, published by 93 Indonesian universities, was analyzed with a focus on four main aspects: accessibility, language, academic discipline, and indexing status. Based on OJS Beacon data, 96.7% of the journals offer free public access without requiring a login. Among the 539 open access journals in the sample, 51.8% were published in Indonesian, 28.5% in English, and 16.3% were bilingual. The most common academic disciplines include commerce, management, tourism and service, and studies of human society. National indexing services reveal that 78.9% are listed in Garuda, 25.2% possess Arjuna accreditation, and only 5.4% are ranked as Science and Technology Index (SINTA) 1 or 2. While 95.7% are indexed in Google Scholar, only one journal is found in Scopus and none in Web of Science. These findings highlight the influence of government policies on open access publishing and underscore ongoing efforts to balance national language usage with global academic communication. This comprehensive analysis provides insights into the evolving landscape of scholarly communication in Indonesia and informs future policy developments and international collaboration.

Original Articles

Evaluating North Korean academic medicine’s contributions to the international medical literature: a bibliometric study: Andrew Holzman, Yongbin Kim, Jaewoo Park, Douglas Rappaport; Sci Ed. 2025;12(2):96-102. Published online April 10, 2025; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.365

2,487 View
80 Download

Abstract PDF: Purpose
We analyzed the bibliometric characteristics of articles authored by individuals affiliated with North Korean medical education institutions indexed in PubMed, using an expanded search strategy to update prior studies.
Methods
Our search revealed both a significantly larger number of publications and a greater capacity for substantive research with international impact than previously reported. We reviewed 331 records, selecting 79 for inclusion. For each publication, we collected data regarding the involvement of North Korean patients as primary research subjects, research methods employed, international partnerships, study topics, the impact factor of the publishing journal, and the number of cross-referencing citations.
Results
We identified 10 publications presenting primary data from North Korean patients, 3 of which involved prospective, randomized clinical trials. North Korean authors frequently collaborated with international partners—primarily from China, though some partnerships involved institutions in Europe and North America—while 11 publications were authored solely by North Korean researchers. Surgery was the most common subject, appearing in 20 publications; however, these articles were cited infrequently (an average of 1.4 citations per publication). In contrast, research in dermatology and traditional medicine demonstrated higher impact (10 and 4.7 cross-citations, respectively).
Conclusion
Our study clarifies the network of partnerships between North Korean medical educators and international institutions. We propose that North Korea’s capacity to engage in research meeting international clinical science standards may be greater than previously acknowledged, particularly in the field of traditional medicine.

Vietnamese researchers’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding open access publishing: a cross-sectional study: Trung Thanh Nguyen, Ngoc Thi Bich Tran, Thai Binh An Nguyen, Huong Giang Bui, Hiep Hung Pham; Sci Ed. 2025;12(2):103-108. Published online April 2, 2025; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.364

2,221 View
88 Download

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material: Purpose
This study aimed to explore Vietnamese researchers’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding open access (OA) publishing.
Methods
A cross-sectional online survey was conducted between May and July 2024, gathering responses from 238 Vietnamese researchers across diverse universities and disciplines. Descriptive statistical analyses were used to identify key trends in knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors among different demographic groups.
Results
Vietnamese researchers primarily acquired information about OA through websites and colleagues, with ScienceOpen, PLOS, and SSRN serving as the main sources. Although they valued OA for its accessibility and broad dissemination, they expressed concerns regarding high publication fees and the quality of OA journals—particularly issues related to peer review rigor and potential risks to academic reputation.
Conclusion
The findings indicate strong support for OA publishing among Vietnamese researchers, despite ongoing concerns about high costs, journal credibility, and insufficient institutional support. Strengthening funding models, institutional advocacy, and quality assurance mechanisms is essential for building trust in OA and fostering a more inclusive scholarly environment.

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

3,394 View
96 Download

Abstract PDF: 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.

Review

Research ethics and issues regarding the use of ChatGPT-like artificial intelligence platforms by authors and reviewers: a narrative review: Sang-Jun Kim; Sci Ed. 2024;11(2):96-106. Published online August 20, 2024; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.343

30,373 View
1,320 Download
18 Web of Science
17 Crossref

Abstract PDF

While generative artificial intelligence (AI) technology has become increasingly competitive since OpenAI introduced ChatGPT, its widespread use poses significant ethical challenges in research. Excessive reliance on tools like ChatGPT may intensify ethical concerns in scholarly articles. Therefore, this article aims to provide a comprehensive narrative review of the ethical issues associated with using AI in academic writing and to inform researchers of current trends. Our methodology involved a detailed examination of literature on ChatGPT and related research trends. We conducted searches in major databases to identify additional relevant articles and cited literature, from which we collected and analyzed papers. We identified major issues from the literature, categorized into problems faced by authors using nonacademic AI platforms in writing and challenges related to the detection and acceptance of AI-generated content by reviewers and editors. We explored eight specific ethical problems highlighted by authors and reviewers and conducted a thorough review of five key topics in research ethics. Given that nonacademic AI platforms like ChatGPT often do not disclose their training data sources, there is a substantial risk of unattributed content and plagiarism. Therefore, researchers must verify the accuracy and authenticity of AI-generated content before incorporating it into their article, ensuring adherence to principles of research integrity and ethics, including avoidance of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Generative artificial intelligence tools in journal article preparation: A preliminary catalog of ethical considerations, opportunities, and pitfalls
Robin R. White
JDS Communications.2025; 6(3): 452. CrossRef
Ethics For Responsible Data Research: Integrating Cybersecurity Perspectives In Digital Era
Sheetal Temara
SSRN Electronic Journal.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Ethical guidelines for the use of generative artificial intelligence and artificial intelligence-assisted tools in scholarly publishing: a thematic analysis
Adéle da Veiga
Science Editing.2025; 12(1): 28. CrossRef
Understanding haze data contestations in Singapore: between accuracy and affect
Nurul Amillin Hussain
Environmental Sociology.2025; : 1. CrossRef
Artificial intelligence-assisted academic writing: recommendations for ethical use
Adam Cheng, Aaron Calhoun, Gabriel Reedy
Advances in Simulation.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Exploring AI Hallucinations of ChatGPT
Adam Cheng, Vikhashni Nagesh, Susan Eller, Vincent Grant, Yiqun Lin
Simulation in Healthcare: The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Research trends and comparisons of major generative artificial intelligence platforms for systematic literature reviews
Sang-Jun Kim
Science Editing.2025; 12(2): 200. CrossRef
Are Teachers Assessing Work Written by Students or by AI? A Rapid Literature Review of Research on Detecting Content Generated by Generative AI
Jining Han, Yuying Yang, Geping Liu
European Journal of Education.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Applications of artificial intelligence in healthcare simulation: a model of thinking
Adam Cheng, Carolyn McGregor
Advances in Simulation.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
ChatGPT: how to use it and the pitfalls/cautions in academia
Jeong-Moo Lee
Annals of Pediatric Endocrinology & Metabolism.2025; 30(5): 229. CrossRef
Initial Validation of the IMPACT Model: Technological Appropriation of ChatGPT by University Faculty
Luz-M. Pereira-González, Andrea Basantes-Andrade, Miguel Naranjo-Toro, Mailevy Guia-Pereira
Education Sciences.2025; 15(11): 1520. CrossRef
Generative AI in academia: Efficiency versus scholarship
Daniela Schnitzler
The Journal of Physiology.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
The Epistemic Downside of Using LLM-Based Generative AI in Academic Writing
Bor Luen Tang
Publications.2025; 13(4): 63. CrossRef
Ethical Considerations for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Linguistics Journal Publishing: Combining Hybrid Thematic Analysis and Critical Discourse Analysis
Xuan Wang, Xinyi Zhang
Publications.2025; 13(4): 61. CrossRef
How is ChatGPT acknowledged in academic publications?
Kayvan Kousha
Scientometrics.2024; 129(12): 7959. CrossRef
Appliances of Generative AI-Powered Language Tools in Academic Writing: A Scoping Review
Lilia Raitskaya, Elena Tikhonova
Journal of Language and Education.2024; 10(4): 5. CrossRef

Original Article

Copyright policies of science and engineering open access journals indexed in Science Citation Index Expanded or Scopus, published by Korean academic societies: Dae Un Hong, Ju Yoen Lee; Sci Ed. 2024;11(1):62-72. Published online February 20, 2024; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.330; Correction in: Sci Ed 2025;12(1):89

5,950 View
165 Download
1 Crossref

Abstract PDF

Purpose
This article explores the challenges related to copyright policies in the context of science and engineering open access (OA) journals based in Korea.
Methods
From Korea Citation Index (KCI)-listed science and engineering journals in English indexed in Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) or Scopus, 162 journals were identified as of January 10, 2024. Of these, 104 were published independently by Korean academic societies. All were open access. Data were collected from the KCI database and verified via each journal’s website. Discrepancies were resolved using the journal website information.
Results
The English-language science and engineering OA journals published independently by Korean academic societies typically exhibit three common characteristics regarding their copyright and licensing policies. First, authors are generally required to transfer their copyrights. Second, the Creative Commons (CC) license terms are predominantly BY-NC (Attribution-NonCommercial), without providing authors the option to select alternative licensing terms. Third, the journals do not sufficiently protect the rights of the authors. From the analyses presented herein, it is evident that the current copyright and licensing policies of Korea’s English-language science and engineering OA journals lack a robust structure.
Conclusion
These policies need to be revised to allow authors to retain copyright and require them to consent for the CC license terms it adopts, in order to align with the common practice among OA journals. Furthermore, to better protect authors’ rights, it would be beneficial to permit authors to choose the specific terms of the CC license for their articles.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Correction to “Copyright policies of science and engineering open access journals indexed in Science Citation Index Expanded or Scopus, published by Korean academic societies”

Science Editing.2025; 12(1): 89. CrossRef

Review

Trends in research on ChatGPT and adoption-related issues discussed in articles: a narrative review: Sang-Jun Kim; Sci Ed. 2024;11(1):3-11. Published online December 18, 2023; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.321

13,788 View
379 Download
13 Web of Science
14 Crossref

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material

This review aims to provide guidance for those contemplating the use of ChatGPT, by sharing research trends and evaluation results discussed in various articles. For an objective and quantitative analysis, 1,105 articles published over a 7-month period, from December 2022 to June 2023, following the release of ChatGPT were collected. These articles were sourced from PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Additionally, 140 research articles were selected, including archived preprints and Korean articles, to evaluate the performance of ChatGPT. The analysis of research trends revealed that related communities are rapidly and actively responding: the educational community is redefining its directions, the copyright and patent community is monitoring lawsuits related to artificial intelligence creations, the government is establishing laws to regulate and prevent potential harm, the journal publishing community is setting standards for whether artificial intelligence can be considered an author, and the medical community is publishing numerous articles exploring the potential of ChatGPT to support medical experts. A comparative analysis of research articles on ChatGPT’s performance suggests that it could serve as a valuable assistant in human intellectual activities and academic processes. However, its practical application requires careful consideration to overcome certain limitations. Both the general public and researchers should assess the adoption of ChatGPT based on accurate information, such as that provided in this review.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Evaluating AI Excellence: A Comparative Analysis of Generative Models in Library and Information Science
Raiyan Bin Reza, Md. Rifat Mahmud, S.M. Zabed Ahmed
Science & Technology Libraries.2025; 44(2): 136. CrossRef
Does ChatGPT affect users’ continuous knowledge contributions in online Q&A communities?
Guo Li, Mark Xuefang Zhu
Aslib Journal of Information Management.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Prediction of the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Through ChatGPT Among Costa Rican University Students: A PLS Model Based on UTAUT2
Julio Cabero-Almenara, Antonio Palacios-Rodríguez, Hazel de los Ángeles Rojas Guzmán, Victoria Fernández-Scagliusi
Applied Sciences.2025; 15(6): 3363. CrossRef
Artificial intelligence-assisted academic writing: recommendations for ethical use
Adam Cheng, Aaron Calhoun, Gabriel Reedy
Advances in Simulation.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
How appropriately can generative artificial intelligence platforms, including GPT-4, Gemini, Bing, and Wrtn, answer questions about colon cancer in the Korean language?
Sun Huh
Annals of Coloproctology.2025; 41(3): 190. CrossRef
Research trends and comparisons of major generative artificial intelligence platforms for systematic literature reviews
Sang-Jun Kim
Science Editing.2025; 12(2): 200. CrossRef
“It Becomes Very Intelligent”: ChatGPT as an Academic Reading Tool for Postgraduates
Afza Diyana Abdullah, Xiaoting Qiu, Huan Li, Muhammad Kamarul Kabilan
Reading Research Quarterly.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Applications of artificial intelligence in healthcare simulation: a model of thinking
Adam Cheng, Carolyn McGregor
Advances in Simulation.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
A Structural Model of Distance Education Teachers’ Digital Competencies for Artificial Intelligence
Julio Cabero-Almenara, Antonio Palacios-Rodríguez, Maria Isabel Loaiza-Aguirre, Dhamar Rafaela Pugla-Quirola
Education Sciences.2025; 15(10): 1271. CrossRef
Initial Validation of the IMPACT Model: Technological Appropriation of ChatGPT by University Faculty
Luz-M. Pereira-González, Andrea Basantes-Andrade, Miguel Naranjo-Toro, Mailevy Guia-Pereira
Education Sciences.2025; 15(11): 1520. CrossRef
The emergence of generative artificial intelligence platforms in 2023, journal metrics, appreciation to reviewers and volunteers, and obituary
Sun Huh
Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions.2024; 21: 9. CrossRef
Explosive increase and decrease in articles, citations, impact factor, and immediacy index during the COVID-19 pandemic: a bibliometric study
Sang-Jun Kim
Science Editing.2024; 11(2): 107. CrossRef
Research ethics and issues regarding the use of ChatGPT-like artificial intelligence platforms by authors and reviewers: a narrative review
Sang-Jun Kim
Science Editing.2024; 11(2): 96. CrossRef
Appliances of Generative AI-Powered Language Tools in Academic Writing: A Scoping Review
Lilia Raitskaya, Elena Tikhonova
Journal of Language and Education.2024; 10(4): 5. CrossRef

Original Articles

Impact factor surge in Korean medical journals during the COVID-19 era: a bibliometric study: Chansu Park, Sejin Park, Hyeonseok Seo, Janghyeog Oh, Dongryeong Kim, Junha Kang, Hanul Kang, Hyunsung Kang, Yaechan Kim, Mi Ah Han; Sci Ed. 2024;11(1):55-61. Published online December 18, 2023; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.320

6,831 View
128 Download
1 Web of Science
1 Crossref

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material

Purpose
The multiyear COVID-19 pandemic has affected the volume and speed of publications in scientific journals. This study evaluated trends in the impact measures of international medical journals published in Korea, including the journal impact factor (JIF).
Methods
We selected Science Citation Index Expanded journals with the country/region set to Korea and the academic category classified as “clinical medicine” in Journal Citation Reports. Trends in indicators such as the JIF and Journal Citation Indicator (JCI) were assessed for journals with JIF information from 2018 to 2022. Ratios and differences between the measures were calculated to determine the extent of the change.
Results
We identified 43 journals, and the average JIF of those journals increased from 2.33 in 2018 and 2.50 in 2019 to 3.45 in 2020 and 3.86 in 2021. Other measures, such as the 5-year JIF and JCI, steadily increased, and the proportion of gold open access journals also increased significantly. However, the JCI and Eigenfactor scores remained steady or showed relatively small increases. Furthermore, impact measures declined in 2022, including a JIF decrease to 3.55.
Conclusion
We presented trends in quantitative measurements for international medical journals in Korea, and found an overall increase. Journals need to maintain a rigorous publication process to improve the quality of their research and the research community needs to exercise caution when using quantitative measures to evaluate journals. Further research is required to examine the quantitative indicators of journals, including their publication policies, research topics, and long-term trends.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Scientific Publication Speed of Korean Medical Journals during the COVID-19 Era
Hyeonseok Seo, Yaechan Kim, Dongryeong Kim, Hanul Kang, Chansu Park, Sejin Park, Junha Kang, Janghyeog Oh, Hyunsung Kang, Mi Ah Han
Healthcare Informatics Research.2024; 30(3): 277. CrossRef

Publishing trends of journals and articles in Journal Citation Reports during the COVID-19 pandemic: a descriptive study: Sang-Jun Kim, Kay Sook Park; Sci Ed. 2023;10(1):78-86. Published online February 16, 2023; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.300

7,191 View
290 Download
4 Web of Science
5 Crossref

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material

Purpose
This study aimed to investigate the changes that occurred in journal and article publishing during the noncontact period that started in 2020 due to COVID-19.
Methods
The integrated journal list in Journal Citation Reports (JCR) 2017–2021 and the search results of Web of Science were analyzed using pivot tables in Microsoft Excel. The articles, citations, impact factor (IF), publishers, open access (OA) status, and compound annual growth rate (CAGR) were investigated using the data.
Results
The CAGRs of articles, citations, and IFs in JCR journals increased throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Moreover, the increase in OA articles was accompanied by a decreasing share of subscription articles. The top 20 journals in JCR-SCIE (Science Citation Index Expanded), based on the number of articles, accepted OA policies and showed a strong influence, accounting for 7% to 9% of all articles. MDPI and Frontiers were OA publishers included among the top 10 publishers. Large publishers maintained their competitiveness through mergers and acquisitions with OA publishers. Due to the rapid distribution of OA and early access articles as part of the international response to overcome COVID-19, the CAGRs of citations and IFs increased more than that of articles, and the publication and use of journal articles have become more active.
Conclusion
The publication and use trends in JCR journals analyzed herein will provide useful information for researchers’ selection of journals for article submission, analyses of research performance, and libraries’ journal subscription contracts.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

The Korea Research Institute of Bioscience and Biotechnology’s number of articles and turnaround time before and after the COVID-19 pandemic: a case study
Sang-Jun Kim
Science Editing.2025; 12(1): 50. CrossRef
Understanding long-term immunity to COVID-19 in healthcare workers: a bibliometric study of IgG antibody
Imam NURJAYA, Erwin ARIEF, Nur A. TABRI, Irawaty DJAHARUDDIN, Bulkis NATSIR, Sitti NURISYAH, Rasiha RASIHA
Gazzetta Medica Italiana Archivio per le Scienze Mediche.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Research ethics and issues regarding the use of ChatGPT-like artificial intelligence platforms by authors and reviewers: a narrative review
Sang-Jun Kim
Science Editing.2024; 11(2): 96. CrossRef
Explosive increase and decrease in articles, citations, impact factor, and immediacy index during the COVID-19 pandemic: a bibliometric study
Sang-Jun Kim
Science Editing.2024; 11(2): 107. CrossRef
Trends in research on ChatGPT and adoption-related issues discussed in articles: a narrative review
Sang-Jun Kim
Science Editing.2023; 11(1): 3. CrossRef

Comparison of the open access status and metrics of Scopus journals published in East Asian countries: a descriptive study: Eungi Kim, Da-Yeong Jeong; Sci Ed. 2023;10(1):57-63. Published online February 16, 2023; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.297

6,433 View
272 Download
6 Web of Science
6 Crossref

Abstract PDF

Purpose
The objective of this study was to compare Scopus journals published in East Asian countries—China, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan—in terms of their open access status and metrics and to explore the implications of those findings for South Korea.
Methods
To conduct this study, we selected four East Asian countries: China, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. We used journal information provided by SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) and Scopus. The following parameters were analyzed for journals published in East Asian countries: open access status, subject categories, quartiles, number of published documents, h-index, publishers, and citation rate.
Results
In all East Asian countries, numerous commercial publishers publish journals. One exception is Science Press, a Chinese government-sponsored publisher, which published the largest number of journals in the East Asian region. Japan had the highest median number of years covered by SJR. However, the proportion of Q1 journals in Japan was the lowest of the East Asian countries. South Korea had the highest proportion of Q1 journals in the country’s total journal production. Publishers in South Korea published more open access journals than any other East Asian country. Despite publishing a high proportion of prestigious journals, South Korea lagged behind China and Japan in the number of Scopus-indexed journals.
Conclusion
The findings indicate that South Korea has made significant progress in locally producing influential journals over the years. However, more efforts to publish international journals are required for South Korea to increase the number of Scopus journals.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Polarization in BRICS and G7: Scopus-Indexed Journal Production Trends (2013–2023)
Eungi Kim, Sureshkrishnan Ramakrishnan, Jason Lim Chiu
Publications.2025; 13(1): 9. CrossRef
Temporal characteristics of journals indexed in both KCI and Scopus: analyzing journal age, coverage and journal metrics
Eungi Kim, Madhu Atteraya, Shreejana Gnawali
Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Continued struggle: The growth of Scopus-indexed journals in Africa over the last decade
Martin Elihaki Kanyika, Eungi Kim
Journal of Librarianship and Information Science.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Does Publisher Volume Matter? A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Scopus Journal Publishing Patterns
Eungi Kim
Publications.2025; 13(2): 17. CrossRef
In-Depth Examination of Coverage Duration: Analyzing Years Covered and Skipped in Journal Indexing
Eungi Kim
Publications.2024; 12(2): 10. CrossRef
Demystifying multilingual LIS journals in Scopus: Languages, coverage, metrics, and implications
Eungi Kim
Journal of Librarianship and Information Science.2024;[Epub] CrossRef

How open access diamond journals comply with industry standards exemplified by Plan S technical requirements: Korean Council of Science Editors; Sci Ed. 2023;10(1):35-44. Published online February 16, 2023; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.295

7,405 View
306 Download
1 Web of Science

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material: Purpose
This study investigated how well current open access (OA) diamond journals in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and a survey conform to Plan S requirements, including licenses, peer review, author copyright, unique article identifiers, digital archiving, and machine-readable licenses.
Methods
Data obtained from DOAJ journals and surveyed journals from mid-June to mid-July 2020 were analyzed for a variety of Plan S requirements. The results were presented using descriptive statistics.
Results
Out of 1,465 journals that answered, 1,137 (77.0%) reported compliance with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) principles. The peer review types used by OA diamond journals were double-blind (6,339), blind (2,070), peer review (not otherwise specified, 1,879), open peer review (42), and editorial review (118) out of 10,449 DOAJ journals. An author copyright retention policy was adopted by 5,090 out of 10,448 OA diamond journals (48.7%) in DOAJ. Of the unique article identifiers, 5,702 (54.6%) were digital object identifiers, 58 (0.6%) were handles, and 14 (0.1%) were uniform resource names, while 4,675 (44.7%) used none. Out of 1,619 surveyed journals, the archiving solutions were national libraries (n=170, 10.5%), Portico (n=67, 4.1%), PubMed Central (n=15, 0.9%), PKP PN (n=91, 5.6%), LOCKSS (n=136, 8.4%), CLOCKSS (n=87, 5.4%), the National Computing Center for Higher Education (n=6, 0.3%), others (n=69, 4.3%), no policy (n=855, 52.8%), and no reply (n=123, 7.6%). Article-level metadata deposition was done by 8,145 out of 10,449 OA diamond journals (78.0%) in DOAJ.
Conclusion
OA diamond journals’ compliance with industry standards exemplified by the Plan S technical requirements was insufficient, except for the peer review type.

Impact and perceived value of the revolutionary advent of artificial intelligence in research and publishing among researchers: a survey-based descriptive study: Riya Thomas, Uttkarsha Bhosale, Kriti Shukla, Anupama Kapadia; Sci Ed. 2023;10(1):27-34. Published online February 16, 2023; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.294

10,716 View
539 Download
11 Web of Science
13 Crossref

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material

Purpose
This study was conducted to understand the perceptions and awareness of artificial intelligence (AI) in the academic publishing landscape.
Methods
We conducted a global survey entitled “Role and impact of AI on the future of academic publishing” to understand the impact of the AI wave in the scholarly publishing domain. This English-language survey was open to all researchers, authors, editors, publishers, and other stakeholders in the scholarly community. Conducted between August and October 2021, the survey received responses from around 212 universities across 54 countries.
Results
Out of 365 respondents, about 93% belonged to the age groups of 18–34 and 35–54 years. While 50% of the respondents selected plagiarism detection as the most widely known AI-based application, image recognition (42%), data analytics (40%), and language enhancement (39%) were some other known applications of AI. The respondents also expressed the opinion that the academic publishing landscape will significantly benefit from AI. However, the major challenges restraining the large-scale adoption of AI, as expressed by 93% of the respondents, were limited knowledge and expertise, as well as difficulties in integrating AI-based solutions into existing IT infrastructure.
Conclusion
The survey responses reflected the necessity of AI in research and publishing. This study suggests possible ways to support a smooth transition. This can be best achieved by educating and creating awareness to ease possible fears and hesitation, and to actualize the promising benefits of AI.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Between Shortcut and Ethics: Navigating the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Academic Writing Among Indonesian Doctoral Students
Hardiyanti Pratiwi, Suherman, Hasruddin, Muhammad Ridha
European Journal of Education.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Examining predictors of generative-AI acceptance and usage in academic research: a sequential mixed-methods approach
Sushma Verma, Neerja Kashive, Ashish Gupta
Benchmarking: An International Journal.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Harnessing the Potential of AI Tools for Student Thesis Research and Writing: An Appreciative Inquiry
Dan Namanya, Mennen Pearl C. Talibong
Pan-African Journal of Education and Social Sciences.2025; 6(1): 30. CrossRef
Perceptions of artificial intelligence in academic teaching and research: a qualitative study from AI experts and professors’ perspectives
Ana Daniela Peres Rebelo Verboom, Leonor Pais, Fred R. H. Zijlstra, Frederick L. Oswald, Nuno Rebelo dos Santos
International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Generative AI and academic scientists in US universities: Perception, experience, and adoption intentions
Wenceslao Arroyo-Machado, Jinghuan Ma, Tipeng Chen, Timothy P. Johnson, Shaika Islam, Lesley Michalegko, Eric Welch, Kingsley Okoye
PLOS One.2025; 20(8): e0330416. 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
Beyond English Hegemony
ZIYANG XU
Proceedings of the ALISE Annual Conference.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
The impact of generative AI tools on researchers and research: Implications for academia in higher education
Abdulrahman M. Al-Zahrani
Innovations in Education and Teaching International.2024; 61(5): 1029. CrossRef
Evaluating the Influence of Artificial Intelligence on Scholarly Research: A Study Focused on Academics
Tosin Ekundayo, Zafarullah Khan, Sabiha Nuzhat, Tze Wei Liew
Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Publish or perish in the era of artificial intelligence: which way for the Kenyan research community?
Stephen Oloo Ajwang, Anselimo Peters Ikoha
Library Hi Tech News.2024; 41(9): 7. CrossRef
Is Artificial Intelligence against/for Better Ethical Scientific Research?
Huriye Yaşar, Vasif Karagücük
Experimental and Applied Medical Science.2024; 5(2): 49. CrossRef
Evaluating the significance of artificial intelligence (AI) in academic platforms by using PIPRECIA-S method
Tijana Đukić, Srđan Novaković, Kristina Jauković-Jocić
Ekonomika.2024; 70(3): 11. CrossRef
Scholarly Discourse on GenAI’s Impact on Academic Publishing
Yogesh K. Dwivedi, Tegwen Malik, Laurie Hughes, Mousa Ahmed Albashrawi
Journal of Computer Information Systems.2024; : 1. CrossRef

Essay

Before you click “submit,” be your own first reviewer: Jean Iwaz; Sci Ed. 2023;10(1):105-108. Published online November 16, 2022; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.288

5,196 View
301 Download

Abstract PDF: For various reasons, despite previous linguistic, formatting, and other checks, beginner-authored or multi-authored manuscripts may be rushed to submission while lacking consistency. This article provides a clear outline of the final round of checks for section consistency, subsection consistency, and overall coherence that a scientific manuscript should undergo before submission. Checks for consistency should target the following: consistency between full and short titles; the exact answer in conclusion to research objectives (questions) and matching between methods and results in the abstract; consistency from a comprehensive view of the research field to the announcement of a single specific objective in the introduction section; coherence between methods and results sections and between results and illustrations in the rest of the text; and, recalls of the objective, the results, and the conclusions in the discussion section. Finally, consistency should be ensured between the various sections of the abstract and those of the manuscript, with the ideal abstract being a true miniature of the manuscript. An original figure provides a handy visual checklist authors might use to implement and achieve manuscript drafting. This round of checks increases readability, comprehensibility, confidence in the results, and the credibility of the authors. Subsequently, confidence and credibility will increase the probability of publication and the visibility of a whole team’s work.

Training Material

Open-source code to convert Journal Article Tag Suite Extensible Markup Language (JATS XML) to various viewers and other XML types for scholarly journal publishing: Younsang Cho; Sci Ed. 2022;9(2):162-168. Published online August 19, 2022; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.284

8,617 View
302 Download
7 Web of Science
8 Crossref

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material

There are many ways to use open source code to implement digital standards for scholarly journal publishing. However, providing digital services using open-source code can be a challenge, especially for small and local academic society journals. This paper provides some critical examples of using some of the many open-source code resources available to the public. Journal Article Tag Suite (JATS) Extensible Markup Language (XML) has been established as an essential tool, and is now used by most journals for digital publication. JATS XML can be converted to other viewer formats, including Extensible Hypertext Markup Language, PubReader, and EPUB 3.0. It can also be used to create dynamic interactive PDFs. It can be converted to other XMLs, incluing Crossref XML, PubMed XML, and DOAJ XML. Open-source code published on GitHub, National Information Standards Organization, and the US National Library of Medicine can be used for Crossref XML deposition for digital object identifier and Crossmark stamp registration. These examples of open-source code need to be implemented on journal websites to provide local academic journal publishers with various critical functions. This paper provides instructions on the best ways to realize these digital standards so that journal content can be provided to readers in a more friendly and effective way.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Building a synthesis-ready research ecosystem: fostering collaboration and open science to accelerate biomedical translation
Alexandra Bannach-Brown, Torsten Rackoll, Malcolm R. Macleod, Sarah K. McCann
BMC Medical Research Methodology.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Ewha Medical Journal passed the scientific evaluation by PubMed Central and succeeded in being included in DOAJ, but failed to be accepted by Scopus
Sun Huh
Ewha Medical Journal.2025; 48(2): e21. CrossRef
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
Role of Medical Editors in the Age of Generative Artificial Intelligence
Sun Huh
Healthcare Informatics Research.2025; 31(4): 317. CrossRef
Artificial intelligence in scholarly publishing and the role of the Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors in the Asia-Pacific region
Young Yoo
Science Editing.2024; 11(1): 77. CrossRef
Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions received the top-ranking Journal Impact Factor―9.3—in the category of Education, Scientific Disciplines in the 2023 Journal Citation Ranking by Clarivate
Sun Huh
Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions.2024; 21: 16. CrossRef
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
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

Original Articles

Charting variety, scope, and impact of open access diamond journals in various disciplines and regions: a survey-based observational study: Korean Council of Science Editors; Sci Ed. 2022;9(2):120-135. Published online August 19, 2022; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.277

9,270 View
337 Download
6 Web of Science
6 Crossref

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material

Purpose
The variety, scope, and impact of open access (OA) diamond journals across disciplines and regions from July 22 to September 11, 2020 were charted to characterize the current OA diamond landscape.
Methods
The total number of diamond journals was estimated, including those outside the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). The distribution across regions, disciplines, and publisher types was described. The scope of journals in terms of authorship and readership was investigated. Information was collected on linguistic diversity, journal dynamics and life cycle, and their visibility in scholarly databases.
Results
The number of OA diamond journals is estimated to be 29,000. OA diamond journals are estimated to publish 356,000 articles per year. The OA diamond sector is diverse in terms of regions (45% in Europe, 25% in Latin America, 16% in Asia, and 5% in the United States/Canada) and disciplines (60% humanities and social sciences, 22% sciences, and 17% medicine). More than 70% of OA diamond journals are published by university-owned publishers, including university presses. The majority of OA diamond journals are small, publishing fewer than 25 articles a year. English (1,210), Spanish (492), and French (342) are the most common languages of the main texts. Out of 1,619 journals, 1,025 (63.3%) are indexed in DOAJ, 492 (30.4%) in Scopus, and 321 (19.8%) in Web of Science.
Conclusion
The patterns and trends reported herein provide insights into the diversity and importance of the OA diamond journal landscape and the accompanying opportunities and challenges in supporting this publishing model.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Awareness and perception of Diamond Open Access among university professors in Iran
A. Subaveerapandiyan, Leili Seifi, Somipam R Shimray, Naved Ahmad
Journal of Librarianship and Information Science.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Citation Metrics of Open Access and Subscription Journals in Education: An Analysis in Scopus’s Education Category
Camila Lopes Ferreira, Luiz Alberto Pilatti, José Roberto Herrera Cantorani, Claudia Tania Picinin
Education for Information.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Journal metrics, document network, and conceptual and social structures of the Korean Journal of Anesthesiology from 2017 to July 2022: a bibliometric study
Sun Huh
Korean Journal of Anesthesiology.2023; 76(1): 3. CrossRef
How open access diamond journals comply with industry standards exemplified by Plan S technical requirements

Science Editing.2023; 10(1): 35. CrossRef
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
Plan S: estimating future developments
Johan Rooryck
Science Editing.2022; 9(2): 149. CrossRef

Science beyond English: to what extent do Vietnamese scholars publish in non-English languages?: Van Luong Nguyen, Dinh-Hai Luong, Hiep-Hung Pham; Sci Ed. 2022;9(2):105-111. Published online August 19, 2022; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.275

5,317 View
299 Download

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material: Purpose
Although English has become the lingua franca for scholarly communication, scholars worldwide publish in other languages. Nevertheless, few studies have answered the question, “To what extent do scholars publish in non-English languages?” This study addresses that question, limiting its scope to Vietnamese scholars.
Methods
We reviewed 833 non-English documents authored by at least one scholar from Vietnam between 1960 and 2021, exploring aspects such as the language of the publication, the year of publication, the document type, number of document citations, the most prolific and most cited authors, and the primary research themes.
Results
Among non-English languages, French, Russian, and Chinese were the three most often selected by Vietnamese scholars for their publications. The year 2015 was a pivotal year when non-English publications from Vietnam significantly increased. Journal articles were the most common type of document, and the most frequent subject areas were medicine, agricultural and biological sciences, engineering, energy, and environmental science.
Conclusion
Although English is the primary language of science, the number of non-English documents by Vietnamese researchers has been increasing. This suggests that collaborative work between Vietnamese researchers and foreign researchers has also increased.

Training Material

The evolution, benefits, and challenges of preprints and their interaction with journals: Pippa Smart; Sci Ed. 2022;9(1):79-84. Published online February 20, 2022; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.269

15,132 View
530 Download
18 Web of Science
25 Crossref

Abstract PDF

This article presents the growth and development of preprints to help authors, editors, and publishers understand and adopt appropriate strategies for incorporating preprints within their scholarly communication strategies. The article considers: preprint history and evolution, integration of preprints and journals, and the benefits and disadvantages, and challenges that preprints offer. The article discusses the two largest and most established preprint servers, arXiv.org (established in 1991) and SSRN (1994), the OSF (Open Science Foundation) initiative that supported preprint growth (2010), bioRxiv (2013), and medRxiv (2019). It then discusses six different levels of acceptance of preprints within journals: uneasy relationship, acceptance of preprint articles, encouraging authors to preprint their articles, active participation with preprints, submerger by reviewing preprints, and finally merger and overlay models. It is notable that most journals now accept submissions that have been posted as preprints. The benefits of preprints include fast circulation, priority publication, increased visibility, community feedback, and contribution to open science. Disadvantages include information overload, inadequate quality assurance, citation dilution, information manipulation and inflation of results. As preprints become mainstream it is likely that they will benefit authors but disadvantage publishers and journals. Authors are encouraged to preprint their own articles but to be cautious about using preprints as the basis for their own research. Editors are encouraged to develop preprint policies and be aware that double-blind review is not possible with preprinting of articles and that allowing citations to preprints is to be encouraged. In conclusion, journal-related stakeholders should consider preprints as an unavoidable development, taking into consideration both the benefits and disadvantages.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Are Preprints a Threat to the Credibility and Quality of Artificial Intelligence Literature in the ChatGPT Era? A Scoping Review and Qualitative Study
Michael Agyemang Adarkwah, A. Y. M. Atiquil Islam, Käthe Schneider, Rose Luckin, Michael Thomas, Jonathan Michael Spector
International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction.2025; 41(9): 5508. CrossRef
The importance of rigor in pharmacy research: Challenges and solutions
Michael R. Gionfriddo, Chyna McClendon, David A. Nolfi, Melissa A. Kalarchian, Jordan R. Covvey
Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy.2025; 21(5): 424. 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
Navigating the Madness of Academic Publishing
Jhonny J M Guedes
Qeios.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Effect of perceived preprint effectiveness and research intensity on posting behaviour
Pablo Dorta-González, María Isabel Dorta-González
The Journal of Academic Librarianship.2025; 51(3): 103062. CrossRef
Language and cognitive function in children: a narrative review of neural, behavioral, and developmental evidence
Ling Pu, Sergey Kiselev, Ningkun Xiao
Frontiers in Psychology.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Seeing the forest for the trees and the changing seasons in the vast land of scholarly publishing
Soo Jung Shin
Science Editing.2024; 11(1): 81. CrossRef
To preprint or not to preprint: A global researcher survey
Rong Ni, Ludo Waltman
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology.2024; 75(6): 749. CrossRef
Open publishing of public health research in Africa: an exploratory investigation of the barriers and solutions
Pasipanodya Ian Machingura Ruredzo, Dominic Dankwah Agyei, Modibo Sangare, Richard F. Heller
Insights the UKSG journal.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Exploring the current dynamics of preprints
Raj Rajeshwar Malinda, Dipika Mishra, Ruchika Bajaj, Alin Khaliduzzaman
Current Medical Research and Opinion.2024; 40(6): 1047. CrossRef
Publishing Embargoes and Versions of Preprints: Impact on the Dissemination of Information
Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, Chun-Kai (Karl) Huang, Maryna Nazarovets
Open Information Science.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Accelerated acceptance time for preprint submissions: a comparative analysis based on PubMed
Dan Tian, Xin Liu, Jiang Li
Scientometrics.2024; 129(7): 3787. CrossRef
A perspective on the Center for Open Science (COS) preprint servers
J. A. Teixeira da Silva
Science Editor and Publisher.2024; 9(1): 86. CrossRef
Post-Publication Review: Evolution of the Scientific Publishing Workflow
D. M. Kochetkov
Economics of Science.2024; 10(3): 8. CrossRef
Partially or fully (“silently”) withdrawn or retracted Center for Open Science preprints
J.A. Teixeira da Silva
Central Asian Journal of Medical Hypotheses and Ethics.2024; 5(4): 290. CrossRef
Open Palaeontology: a new model of diamond open access journal for palaeontology
Harriet B. Drage, Joseph N. Keating, Morten Lunde Nielsen, Farid Saleh, Thomas W. Wong Hearing
Open Palaeontology.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
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
Most Preprint Servers Allow the Publication of Opinion Papers
Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, Serhii Nazarovets
Open Information Science.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
The rise of preprints in earth sciences
Olivier Pourret, Daniel Enrique Ibarra
F1000Research.2023; 12: 561. CrossRef
The rise of preprints in earth sciences
Olivier Pourret, Daniel Enrique Ibarra
F1000Research.2023; 12: 561. CrossRef
Sharing the wealth: a proposal for discipline-based repositories of shared educational resources
Ellen Austin
Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education.2023; 27(4): 131. CrossRef
The experiences of COVID-19 preprint authors: a survey of researchers about publishing and receiving feedback on their work during the pandemic
Narmin Rzayeva, Susana Oliveira Henriques, Stephen Pinfield, Ludo Waltman
PeerJ.2023; 11: e15864. CrossRef
An attempt to explain the partial 'silent' withdrawal or retraction of a SAGE Advance preprint
Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva
Publishing Research.2023;[Epub] 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
Dissemination of Registered COVID-19 Clinical Trials (DIRECCT): a cross-sectional study
Maia Salholz-Hillel, Molly Pugh-Jones, Nicole Hildebrand, Tjada A. Schult, Johannes Schwietering, Peter Grabitz, Benjamin Gregory Carlisle, Ben Goldacre, Daniel Strech, Nicholas J. DeVito
BMC Medicine.2023;[Epub] CrossRef

Original Article

Korean researchers’ motivations for publishing in data journals and the usefulness of their data: a qualitative study: Jungyeoun Lee, Jihyun Kim; Sci Ed. 2021;8(2):145-152. Published online August 20, 2021; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.246

6,801 View
205 Download
3 Web of Science
3 Crossref

Abstract PDF

Purpose
This study investigated the usefulness and limitations of data journals by analyzing motivations for submission, review and publication processes according to researchers with experience publishing in data journals.
Methods
Among 79 data journals indexed in Web of Science, we selected four data journals where data papers accounted for more than 20% of the publication volume and whose corresponding authors belonged to South Korean research institutes. A qualitative analysis was conducted of the subjective experiences of seven corresponding authors who agreed to participate in interviews. To analyze interview transcriptions, clusters were created by restructuring the theme nodes using Nvivo 12.
Results
The most important element of data journals to researchers was their usefulness for obtaining credit for research performance. Since the data in repositories linked to data papers are screened using journals’ review processes, the validity, accuracy, reusability, and reliability of data are ensured. In addition, data journals provide a basis for data sharing using repositories and data-centered follow-up research using citations and offer detailed descriptions of data.
Conclusion
Data journals play a leading role in data-centered research. Data papers are recognized as research achievements through citations in the same way as research papers published in conventional journals, but there was also a perception that it is difficult to attain a similar level of academic recognition with data papers as with research papers. However, researchers highly valued the usefulness of data journals, and data journals should thus be developed into new academic communication channels that enhance data sharing and reuse.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Factors influencing authors’ intention to continue publishing in data journals: a cross-sectional survey
Seungeun Lee, Jihyun Kim
Science Editing.2025; 12(2): 183. CrossRef
Development and validation of the motivation to publish scale-scientific articles (EMP-AC) for Peruvian university students
Oscar Mamani-Benito, Julio Torres-Miranda, Edison Effer Apaza-Tarqui, Madona Tito-Betancur, Wilter C. Morales-García, Josué Edison Turpo-Chaparro
Frontiers in Education.2023;[Epub] 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

Review

Artificial intelligence-assisted tools for redefining the communication landscape of the scholarly world: Habeeb Ibrahim Abdul Razack, Sam T. Mathew, Fathinul Fikri Ahmad Saad, Saleh A. Alqahtani; Sci Ed. 2021;8(2):134-144. Published online July 27, 2021; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.244

30,967 View
1,155 Download
28 Web of Science
36 Crossref

Abstract PDF

The flood of research output and increasing demands for peer reviewers have necessitated the intervention of artificial intelligence (AI) in scholarly publishing. Although human input is seen as essential for writing publications, the contribution of AI slowly and steadily moves ahead. AI may redefine the role of science communication experts in the future and transform the scholarly publishing industry into a technology-driven one. It can prospectively improve the quality of publishable content and identify errors in published content. In this article, we review various AI and other associated tools currently in use or development for a range of publishing obligations and functions that have brought about or can soon leverage much-demanded advances in scholarly communications. Several AI-assisted tools, with diverse scope and scale, have emerged in the scholarly market. AI algorithms develop summaries of scientific publications and convert them into plain-language texts, press statements, and news stories. Retrieval of accurate and sufficient information is prominent in evidence-based science publications. Semantic tools may empower transparent and proficient data extraction tactics. From detecting simple plagiarism errors to predicting the projected citation impact of an unpublished article, AI’s role in scholarly publishing is expected to be multidimensional. AI, natural language processing, and machine learning in scholarly publishing have arrived for writers, editors, authors, and publishers. They should leverage these technologies to enable the fast and accurate dissemination of scientific information to contribute to the betterment of humankind.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Euroscepticism: a meta-analysis
Paolo Marzi
Acta Politica.2025; 60(4): 704. CrossRef
E-textiles in healthcare: a systematic literature review of wearable technologies for monitoring and enhancing human health
Chenjie Wang, Lina Fu, Divine Senanu Ametefe, Suqi Wang, Dah John
Neural Computing and Applications.2025; 37(4): 2089. CrossRef
Adoption of AI writing tools among academic researchers: A Theory of Reasoned Action approach
Mohammed A. Al-Bukhrani, Yasser Mohammed Hamid Alrefaee, Mohammed Tawfik, Dokun Iwalewa OIuwajana
PLOS ONE.2025; 20(1): e0313837. CrossRef
From Algorithms to insights: Revolutionizing literature education with AI
Erinda Papa
Academic Journal of Business, Administration, Law and Social Sciences.2025; 11(1): 31. CrossRef
A Review on Conversational AI as a Tool in Academic Writing
Hakan Demiröz, Gülşah Tıkız Ertürk
Eskiyeni.2025; (56): 469. CrossRef
Examining predictors of generative-AI acceptance and usage in academic research: a sequential mixed-methods approach
Sushma Verma, Neerja Kashive, Ashish Gupta
Benchmarking: An International Journal.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
AI in education: enhancing learning potential and addressing ethical considerations among academic staff—a cross-sectional study at the University of Jordan
Marwa M. Alnsour, Latifa Qouzah, Sanaa Aljamani, Rasha A. Alamoush, Mahmoud K. AL-Omiri
International Journal for Educational Integrity.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
The Review of Current Artificial Intelligence Techniques for Educational Content Creation and Implementation
Veljko Aleksić, Danijela Vasilijević
Društvene i humanističke studije (Online).2025; 10(1(27)): 571. CrossRef
Evaluation of an Artificial Intelligence-Generated Health Communication Material on Bird Flu Precautions
Ayokunle A. Olagoke, Comfort Tosin Adebayo, Joseph Ayotunde Aderonmu, Emmanuel A. Adeaga, Kimberly J. Johnson
Zoonotic Diseases.2025; 5(3): 22. CrossRef
Academic Writing in the Age of AI: Opportunities, Challenges, and Best Practices
Vemula Madhavi
Trends in Scholarly Publishing.2025; 4(1): 8. CrossRef
Manuscript management systems require sensible management: The case of authors from different geographic regions
Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva
Science Editor and Publisher.2025; 10(1): 61. CrossRef
Media Producing Model Integrating Artificial Intelligence into Publishing Processes
Oleksii Sytnyk
Obraz.2025; 48(2): 126. CrossRef
Steering AI-driven Personalization of Scientific Text for General Audiences
Taewook Kim, Dhruv Agarwal, Jordan Ackerman, Manaswi Saha
Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction.2025; 9(7): 1. CrossRef
Comunicación y creatividad en la era de la inteligencia artificial: entre la eficiencia y la autenticidad
Rafael Mateo Chica Oh, Cynthia Shakira Enríquez Fierro
Religación.2025; 10(47): e2501562. CrossRef
Leveraging Artificial Intelligence in Research and Scholarly Work: Innovative Approaches and Practical Applications
Adam L. McClain, Scott Barton
New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
The impact of generative AI tools on researchers and research: Implications for academia in higher education
Abdulrahman M. Al-Zahrani
Innovations in Education and Teaching International.2024; 61(5): 1029. CrossRef
Slow Writing with ChatGPT: Turning the Hype into a Right Way Forward
Chitnarong Sirisathitkul
Postdigital Science and Education.2024; 6(2): 431. CrossRef
Navigating the impact: a study of editors’ and proofreaders’ perceptions of AI tools in editing and proofreading
Islam Al Sawi, Ahmed Alaa
Discover Artificial Intelligence.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Beyond Plagiarism: ChatGPT as the Vanguard of Technological Revolution in Research and Citation
Hanni B. Flaherty, Jackson Yurch
Research on Social Work Practice.2024; 34(5): 483. CrossRef
Capítulo 3. Inteligencia Artificial en la comunicación científica
Sofía E. Calle-Pesántez, José Moisés Pallo-Chiguano
Espejo de Monografías de Comunicación Social.2024; (23): 59. CrossRef
MAATrica: a measure for assessing consistency and methods in medicinal and nutraceutical chemistry papers
Giulia Panzarella, Alessandro Gallo, Sandra Coecke, Maddalena Querci, Francesco Ortuso, Martin Hofmann-Apitius, Pierangelo Veltri, Jürgen Bajorath, Stefano Alcaro
European Journal of Medicinal Chemistry.2024; 273: 116522. CrossRef
Use and Impact of Artificial Intelligence in Philippine Higher Education: Reflections from Instructors and Administrators
Louie Giray, Paolo Yves De Silos, Adonis Adornado, Robbie Jan Vincent Buelo, Elbert Galas, Ethel Reyes-Chua, Cereneo Santiago, Ma. Leah Ulanday
Internet Reference Services Quarterly.2024; 28(3): 315. CrossRef
Empowering knowledge through AI: open scholarship proactively supporting well trained generative AI
Beth Montague-Hellen
Insights the UKSG journal.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Between tech and text: the use of generative AI in Palestinian universities - a ChatGPT case study
Bilal Hamamra, Asala Mayaleh, Zuheir N. Khlaif
Cogent Education.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
AI Tools in LIS Research: Navigating Opportunities and Challenges for Scholarly Advancement
Anuradha Maurya, Priyanka Sinha
The Serials Librarian.2024; 85(5-6): 74. CrossRef
Harnessing Artificial Intelligence for Enhanced Scientific Collaboration: Insights from Students and Educational Implications
Małgorzata Gawlik-Kobylińska
Education Sciences.2024; 14(10): 1132. CrossRef
Artificial intelligence in scientific writing: opportunities and ethical considerations
Anil Sharma, Praveen Rao, Mohammad Zubair Ahmed, Krishnakant Chaturvedi
International Journal of Research in Medical Sciences.2024; 13(1): 532. CrossRef
Advancing Scholarly Publishing Through Artificial Intelligence: A Paradigm Shift
Muskan Dubey, Arun Kumar Dubey , Ravindra P Veeranna
Trends in Scholarly Publishing.2024; 3(1): 1. CrossRef
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
Artificial intelligence-assisted medical writing: With greater power comes greater responsibility
Rhythm Bains
Asian Journal of Oral Health and Allied Sciences.2023; 13: 2. CrossRef
Emergence of the metaverse and ChatGPT in journal publishing after the COVID-19 pandemic
Sun Huh
Science Editing.2023; 10(1): 1. CrossRef
Author-Profile-Based Journal Recommendation for a Candidate Article: Using Hybrid Semantic Similarity and Trend Analysis
Mehmet Yașar Bayraktar, Mehmet Kaya
IEEE Access.2023; 11: 45826. CrossRef
Utilization of artificial intelligence technology in an academic writing class: How do Indonesian students perceive?
Santi Pratiwi Tri Utami, Andayani Andayani, Retno Winarni, Sumarwati Sumarwati
Contemporary Educational Technology.2023; 15(4): ep450. CrossRef
Editorial policies of Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions on the use of generative artificial intelligence in article writing and peer review
Sun Huh
Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions.2023; 20: 40. CrossRef
Current Status of Neurointervention, the Official Journal of the Korean Society of Interventional Neuroradiology
Dae Chul Suh, Sun Huh
Neurointervention.2022; 17(2): 67. CrossRef
Profiles of Technology Use and Plagiarism in High School Education
Juan Carlos Torres-Diaz, Pablo Vicente Torres Carrión, Isidro Marín Gutierrez
SSRN Electronic Journal .2021;[Epub] CrossRef

Original Articles

Network of institutions, source journals, and keywords on COVID-19 by Korean authors based on the Web of Science Core Collection in January 2021: Kyung Won Kim, Geum Hee Jeong; Sci Ed. 2021;8(1):47-56. Published online February 20, 2021; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.229

8,815 View
174 Download
5 Web of Science
6 Crossref

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material

Purpose
The aim of this study was to characterize the network of institutions, journals, and topics of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) literature by Korean authors in the Web of Science Core Collection. The specific goals were to identify the collaborative relationships between Korean authors and international authors and to explore clusters of institutions, journals, and topics.
Methods
Literature was searched in the Web of Science Core Collection on January 30, 2021. The search terms were “SARS-CoV-2” or “COVID” or “novel coronavirus” in the subject field. The search results were limited again to “South Korea” as the country and the publication type of “article.” The measurement tool was Biblioshiny, an app version tool for Bibliometrix.
Results
Korean authors published 3.2 times more COVID-19–related articles in journals outside of Korea than in Korean journals. The journals showed three clusters by bibliographic coupling. In contrast, the co-citation network showed four clusters. Only a few journals were included in the clusters in both analyses. The conceptual structure of Keywords Plus by factorial analysis showed two clusters: “pathology and clinical treatment” and “knowledge and attitudes.” Institutions’ collaborative network consisted of four clusters. Korean researchers actively collaborated with international researchers, especially those in the United States.
Conclusion
Because only a few Korean journals were included in the journal clusters by both coupling and co-citation network, more active citation of Korean journals is recommended. The identification of human behavior as a distinct theme in COVID-19 research suggests a different focus in this area besides clinical studies.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

A scientometric analysis of the effect of COVID-19 on the spread of research outputs
Gianpaolo Zammarchi, Andrea Carta, Silvia Columbu, Luca Frigau, Monica Musio
Quality & Quantity.2024; 58(3): 2265. CrossRef
Journal metrics, document network, and conceptual and social structures of the Korean Journal of Anesthesiology from 2017 to July 2022: a bibliometric study
Sun Huh
Korean Journal of Anesthesiology.2023; 76(1): 3. CrossRef
Distance is no longer a barrier to healthcare services: current state and future trends of telehealth research
Saumyaranjan Sahoo, Junali Sahoo, Satish Kumar, Weng Marc Lim, Nisreen Ameen
Internet Research.2023; 33(3): 890. 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
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
Better, Faster, Stronger: The Evolution of Co-authorship in International Management Research Between 1990 and 2016
Oliver Wieczorek, Markus Eckl, Madeleine Bausch, Erik Radisch, Christoph Barmeyer, Malte Rehbein
Sage Open.2021;[Epub] 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

8,512 View
210 Download
9 Web of Science
10 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

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

Influence of the top 10 journal publishers listed in Journal Citation Reports based on six indicators: Sang-Jun Kim, Kay Sook Park; Sci Ed. 2020;7(2):142-148. Published online August 20, 2020; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.209

12,101 View
254 Download
11 Web of Science
14 Crossref

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material

Purpose
: An accurate evaluation of the influence of the largest publishers in world journal publishing is a starting point for negotiating journal subscriptions and an important issue for research libraries. This study was conducted to evaluate the influence of the largest publishers based on Journal Citation Reports (JCR) indicators.
Methods
From JCR 2014 to 2018 data, a unique journal list by publisher was created in Excel. The top 10 publishers were selected and evaluated in terms of the average share of six JCR indicators including the impact factor, Eigenfactor score, and article influence score, along with the number of journals, articles, and citations.
Results
The top three publishers accounted for about 50% of the JCR indicators, the top five for 60%, and the top 10 for 70%. Therefore, the concentration of the top three publishers, with a share exceeding 50% for five indicators, was more intensive than has been reported in previous studies. For the top 10 publishers, not only the number of journals and articles, but also citations and the impact factor, which reflect the practical use of journals, were increasing.
Conclusion
These evaluation results will be important to research libraries and librarians in deciding upon journal subscriptions using publisher information, to journal publishers trying to list their journals in JCR, and to consortium operators to negotiate strategically. Using the unique journal list created in this research process, various follow-up studies are possible. However, it is also urgent to build a standardized world journal list with accurate information.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Does Publisher Volume Matter? A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Scopus Journal Publishing Patterns
Eungi Kim
Publications.2025; 13(2): 17. CrossRef
Trends in Open Access Publishing With a Special Emphasis on MDPI (2018-2022)
Marek Kosmulski
Investigación Bibliotecológica: archivonomía, bibliotecología e información.2025; 39(104): 29. CrossRef
Virtual reality in education: global trends, challenges, and impacts—game changer or passing trend?
Agariadne Dwinggo Samala, Soha Rawas, Sandi Rahmadika, Santiago Criollo-C, Ryan Fikri, Randi Proska Sandra
Discover Education.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Do Changes in Journal Rank Influence Publication Output? Evidence from China
Zhuanlan Sun, Chenwei Zhang, Ka Lok Pang, Ying Tang, Yiwei Li
Scientometrics.2024; 129(11): 7035. CrossRef
The Cost of Knowledge: Academic Journal Pricing and Research Dissemination
Yonghong An, Michael A. Williams, Mo Xiao
SSRN Electronic Journal.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Publishing international library and information science journals: The changing landscape
Eungi Kim
Journal of Librarianship and Information Science.2023; 55(2): 478. CrossRef
Mobile computer-supported collaborative learning for mathematics: A scoping review
Rex P. Bringula, Francis Arlando L. Atienza
Education and Information Technologies.2023; 28(5): 4893. CrossRef
Publishing trends of journals and articles in Journal Citation Reports during the COVID-19 pandemic: a descriptive study
Sang-Jun Kim, Kay Sook Park
Science Editing.2023; 10(1): 78. CrossRef
Changes in article share and growth by publisher and access type in Journal Citation Reports 2016, 2018, and 2020
Sang-Jun Kim, Kay Sook Park
Science Editing.2022; 9(1): 30. CrossRef
Factors, Components and Dynamics: Investigation of Journal Self-Citation and Citation by Equal Opportunity Model
Yangping Zhou
SSRN Electronic Journal.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
Open access status of journals and articles in Journal Citation Reports
Sang-Jun Kim, Kay Sook Park
Science Editing.2021; 8(1): 26. CrossRef
Influence of open access journals on the research community in Journal Citation Reports
Sang-Jun Kim, Kay Sook Park
Science Editing.2021; 8(1): 32. CrossRef
Self-citation and citation of top journal publishers and their interpretation in the journal-discipline context
Yangping Zhou
Scientometrics.2021; 126(7): 6013. CrossRef
Market share of the largest publishers in Journal Citation Reports based on journal price and article processing charge
Sang-Jun Kim, Kay Sook Park
Science Editing.2020; 7(2): 149. CrossRef

Crossref at 20 years: what do the community need?: Rachael Lammey; Sci Ed. 2020;7(2):125-129. Published online August 20, 2020; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.206

6,699 View
90 Download
6 Web of Science
8 Crossref

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material

Purpose
The 20th anniversary of Crossref is a good point to evaluate where Crossref stands with the communities it supports so that it can be in a position to serve their needs in the future.
Methods
This evaluation took the form of a survey and a series of interviews run by Shift Learning in mid-2019.
Results
Results are presented in the form of a report authored by Shift Learning which is discussed in this paper.
Conclusion
Overall, Crossref is appreciated and provides value for the scholarly community. However, it needs to make sure that it continues to serve key stakeholders, ensure that core systems work smoothly for all members and that they balance the needs of its different sizes of members and those who subscribe to or use the Crossref metadata. The report from Shift Learning makes specific recommendations regarding pricing, products and services and, communications which Crossref should consider to continue to address the needs of its diverse stakeholders

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Instructions for Authors Submitting Papers to Electrochemistry

Electrochemistry.2025; 93(Announceme): S00002. CrossRef
Instructions for Authors Submitting Papers to Electrochemistry

Electrochemistry.2025; 93(Announceme): S00001. CrossRef
A new method of calculating the disruption index based on open citation data
Yuyan Jiang, Xueli Liu
Journal of Information Science.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Reflections on 4 years in the role of a Crossref ambassador in Korea
Jae Hwa Chang
Science Editing.2022; 9(1): 69. CrossRef
Presidential address: the Korean Council of Science Editors as a board member of Crossref from March 2021 to February 2024
Sun Huh
Science Editing.2021; 8(1): 1. CrossRef
Invalidated—Instructions for Authors Submitting Papers to Electrochemistry

Electrochemistry.2021; 89(Announceme): S20. CrossRef
Invalidated—Instructions for Authors Submitting Papers to Electrochemistry

Electrochemistry.2021; 89(Announceme): S1. 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

Influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on Asian scholarly journal editors’ daily life, work, and opinions on future journal development: Yeonok Chung, Sue Kim, Sun Huh; Sci Ed. 2020;7(2):111-117. Published online August 20, 2020; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.204

8,549 View
177 Download
7 Web of Science
6 Crossref

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material

Purpose
This study examined changes in Asian journal editors’ daily life and work during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and investigated their opinions on expected changes, thereby providing preliminary data to support the future needs of journal editors.
Methods
A survey questionnaire was developed and sent to 1,537 editors and staff of Asian scientific journals from July 13 to 19, 2020. The items gathered information on participants’ general characteristics, changes in daily life, changes in work life, anticipated future changes, and suggestions in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Results
Of the 152 respondents (response rate, 9.7%), most were editors. Fifty-seven respondents (37.5%) felt very or extremely anxious about the COVID-19 pandemic, and 101 (68.4%) reported spending more time on the internet. The workload of editing, reviewing, and publishing had increased for about one-third of respondents (34.2%, n = 52). Forty-four respondents (28.9%) said that the number of submissions had increased. Of the 68 editors who had received manuscripts on COVID-19, 30 (44.1%) prioritized them. Most respondents (73.7%, n = 112) predicted that online-only journal publishing would expand after the COVID-19 pandemic.
Conclusion
COVID-19 appears to be a source of anxiety to editors, which may be related to the increased time they spend on the internet. Some editors reported an increased workload. To promote online communication, a better environment and training tools are required. Editors and staff will need more opportunities to prepare for online publishing, as editors believed that the online-only publication of scholarly journals would accelerate after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Between panic and motivation: did the first wave of COVID-19 affect scientific publishing in Mediterranean countries?
Mona Farouk Ali
Scientometrics.2022; 127(6): 3083. CrossRef
Did anthropause generate a research pause during the pandemic? The experiences of a non‐medical journal
Jiao Zhang
Learned Publishing.2021; 34(3): 457. CrossRef
Was the number of submissions to scholarly journals in Korea affected by the COVID-19 pandemic?
Sun Huh
Science Editing.2021; 8(1): 117. CrossRef
COVID-19 and publishing
Kihong Kim
Science Editing.2020; 7(2): 109. CrossRef
Year in review and appreciation for 2020 reviewers
Sue Kim
Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing.2020; 26(4): 251. CrossRef
Reflections as 2020 comes to an end: the editing and educational environment during the COVID-19 pandemic, the power of Scopus and Web of Science in scholarly publishing, journal statistics, and appreciation to reviewers and volunteers
Sun Huh
Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions.2020; 17: 44. CrossRef

Training Material

Search engines and software for manuscript editing: Yeonwook Kim; Sci Ed. 2020;7(1):88-93. Published online February 20, 2020; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.199

7,594 View
104 Download

Abstract PDF: In recent years, manuscript editing has become extremely important for academic journals. Using appropriate software for manuscript editing results in improved work efficiency and increased accuracy; therefore, this article aimed to introduce search engines and software that can be used for manuscript editing. First, a variety of search engines and academic databases can be used to reduce errors and to create accurate references. Google, the world’s leading search engine, provides users with information with the highest probability of accuracy, regardless of the reference language or the search term. If it is not possible to find certain information on Google, one can consult WorldCat, PubMed, Naver Academic, KoreaScience, Research Information Sharing Service, DBpia, Crossref, and Edifix. In particular, Naver Academic provides search results for some materials that cannot be found on Google. Second, PerfectIt facilitates the correction of errors that occur frequently in English-language documents. Finally, Grammarly is a helpful tool for checking and correcting grammar and spelling errors. As the academic publishing environment changes, the role and demands of manuscript editors are also changing. In a fast-paced environment, the software and search engines discussed herein are highly useful tools for manuscript editing.

Original Articles

Characteristics of retracted articles based on retraction data from online sources through February 2019: Quan-Hoang Vuong, Viet-Phuong La, Manh-Tung Ho, Thu-Trang Vuong, Manh-Toan Ho; Sci Ed. 2020;7(1):34-44. Published online February 20, 2020; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.187

18,137 View
401 Download
34 Web of Science
28 Crossref

Abstract PDF

Purpose
Although retractions are commonly considered to be negative, the fact remains that they play a positive role in the academic community. For instance, retractions help scientific enterprise perform its self-correcting function and provide lessons for future researchers; furthermore, they represent the fulfillment of social responsibilities, and they enable scientific communities to offer better monitoring services to keep problematic studies in check. This study aims to provide a thorough overview of the practice of retraction in scientific publishing from the first incident to the present.
Methods
We built a database using SQL Server 2016 and homemade artificial intelligence tools to extract and classify data sources including RetractionWatch, official publishers’ archives, and online communities into ready-to-analyze groups and to scan them for new data. After data cleaning, a dataset of 18,603 retractions from 1,753 (when the first retracted paper was published) to February 2019, covering 127 research fields, was established.
Results
Notable retraction events include the rise in retracted articles starting in 1999 and the unusual number of retractions in 2010. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Elsevier, and Springer account for nearly 60% of all retracted papers globally, with Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers contributing the most retractions, even though it is not the organization that publishes the most journals. Finally, reasons for retraction are diverse but the most common is “fake peer review”.
Conclusion
This study suggests that the frequency of retraction has boomed in the past 20 years, and it underscores the importance of understanding and learning from the practice of retracting scientific articles.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Retractions covered by retraction watch from 2017 to 2022: a perspective from Indian researchers
Somipam R. Shimray, Sakshi Tiwari, Chennupati Kodand Ramaiah
Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication.2025; 74(7-8): 2225. CrossRef
Evaluation of retracted publications related to oral health: a scoping review
Bodiek M. L. E. Reith, Henk S. Brand
British Dental Journal.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Characterizing the effect of retractions on publishing careers
Shahan Ali Memon, Kinga Makovi, Bedoor AlShebli
Nature Human Behaviour.2025; 9(6): 1134. CrossRef
Assigning linguistic agency and attributive responsibility in retraction notices
Shaoxiong Brian Xu, Guangwei Hu
Ethics & Behavior.2025; : 1. CrossRef
Narrative review and bibliometric analysis on infodemics and health misinformation: A trending global issue
Muhammad Iqhrammullah, Naufal Gusti, Asyraf Muzaffar, Yousef Khader, Sidik Maulana, Marius Rademaker, Asnawi Abdullah
Health Policy and Technology.2025; 14(5): 101058. CrossRef
A data mining-based study on academic publication retractions in the 21st Century
Qian Shen, Xueyan Gao, Xiaomeng Xiong
Accountability in Research.2025; : 1. CrossRef
‘Wasted’ research and lost citations: A scientometric assessment of retracted documents in Scopus between 2001 and 2024
Gergely Ferenc Lendvai, Péter Sasvári
Journal of Information Science.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Can social media provide early warning of retraction? Evidence from critical tweets identified by human annotation and large language models
Er‐Te Zheng, Hui‐Zhen Fu, Mike Thelwall, Zhichao Fang
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Characteristics of retracted research papers before and during the COVID-19 pandemic
Yuki Furuse
Frontiers in Medicine.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Retractions in arts and humanities: an analysis of the retraction notices
Ivan Heibi, Silvio Peroni
Digital Scholarship in the Humanities.2024; 39(2): 548. CrossRef
A comparative study on characteristics of retracted publications across different open access levels
Er-Te Zheng, Hui-Zhen Fu
Journal of Data and Information Science.2024; 9(2): 22. CrossRef
Streamlining the self-correction process: a review of the use of replication research by organizational scholars
Przemysław G. Hensel, Agnieszka Kacprzak
Journal of Organizational Change Management.2024; 37(3): 465. CrossRef
Publication Ethics in the Era of Artificial Intelligence
Zafer Kocak
Journal of Korean Medical Science.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Over two decades of scientific misconduct in India: Retraction reasons and journal quality among inter-country and intra-country institutional collaboration
Kiran Sharma
Scientometrics.2024; 129(12): 7735. CrossRef
Mapping retracted articles and exploring regional differences in China, 2012–2023
Liping Shi, Xue Zhang, Xiaojun Ma, Xian Sun, Jiangping Li, Shulan He, Robin Haunschild
PLOS ONE.2024; 19(12): e0314622. CrossRef
Research done wrong: A comprehensive investigation of retracted publications in COVID-19
Somipam R. Shimray
Accountability in Research.2023; 30(7): 393. CrossRef
“Research exceptionalism” in the COVID-19 pandemic: an analysis of scientific retractions in Scopus
Priscila Rubbo, Caroline Lievore, Celso Biynkievycz Dos Santos, Claudia Tania Picinin, Luiz Alberto Pilatti, Bruno Pedroso
Ethics & Behavior.2023; 33(5): 339. CrossRef
Biased, wrong and counterfeited evidences published during the COVID-19 pandemic, a systematic review of retracted COVID-19 papers
Angelo Capodici, Aurelia Salussolia, Francesco Sanmarchi, Davide Gori, Davide Golinelli
Quality & Quantity.2023; 57(5): 4881. CrossRef
Are female scientists underrepresented in self-retractions for honest error?
Mariana D. Ribeiro, Jesus Mena-Chalco, Karina de Albuquerque Rocha, Marlise Pedrotti, Patrick Menezes, Sonia M. R. Vasconcelos
Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Causes for Retraction in the Biomedical Literature: A Systematic Review of Studies of Retraction Notices
Soo Young Hwang, Dong Keon Yon, Seung Won Lee, Min Seo Kim, Jong Yeob Kim, Lee Smith, Ai Koyanagi, Marco Solmi, Andre F Carvalho, Eunyoung Kim, Jae Il Shin, John P A Ioannidis
Journal of Korean Medical Science.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
The relationship between methodological quality and the use of retracted publications in evidence syntheses
Caitlin J. Bakker, Nicole Theis-Mahon, Sarah Jane Brown, Maurice P. Zeegers
Systematic Reviews.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Non‐author entities accountable for retractions: A diachronic and cross‐disciplinary exploration of reasons for retraction
Shaoxiong (Brian) Xu, Guangwei Hu
Learned Publishing.2022; 35(2): 261. CrossRef
Correction of the Scientific Production: Publisher Performance Evaluation Using a Dataset of 4844 PubMed Retractions
Catalin Toma, Liliana Padureanu, Bogdan Toma
Publications.2022; 10(2): 18. CrossRef
Can tweets be used to detect problems early with scientific papers? A case study of three retracted COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 papers
Robin Haunschild, Lutz Bornmann
Scientometrics.2021; 126(6): 5181. CrossRef
Research ethics: a profile of retractions from world class universities
Caroline Lievore, Priscila Rubbo, Celso Biynkievycz dos Santos, Claudia Tânia Picinin, Luiz Alberto Pilatti
Scientometrics.2021; 126(8): 6871. CrossRef
Retractions, Fake Peer Reviews, and Paper Mills
Horacio Rivera, Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva
Journal of Korean Medical Science.2021;[Epub] CrossRef
A cross-disciplinary and severity-based study of author-related reasons for retraction
Shaoxiong (Brian) Xu, Guangwei Hu
Accountability in Research.2021;[Epub] 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

Compliance of “Principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing” in Korean academic society-published journals listed in Journal Citation Reports: Ye Jin Choi, Hyung Wook Choi, Soon Kim; Sci Ed. 2020;7(1):24-33. Published online February 20, 2020; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.186

9,928 View
149 Download
8 Web of Science
10 Crossref

Abstract PDF

Purpose
The “Principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing” are of increasing importance in an open science environment as a way to increase the transparency and quality of academic society journals. However, little previous research has investigated the application of this new guideline in practice. The aim of this study was to investigate the degree to which this guideline is being applied by Korean academic society– published journals listed in Journal Citation Reports.
Methods
The researchers investigated the homepages of 59 Korean academic society– published journals to evaluate whether they had adopted the 33 items listed in the guideline. Based on the information available on the journals’ homepages, each item was classified as ‘yes’ or ‘no’ within the four categories of basic journal information, publication ethics, copyright and archiving information, and profit model.
Results
The basic journal information category was generally well-practiced, with the exceptions of the peer review process, readership, and author fees. The copyright and licensing information category was also well-practiced, with the exception of policies on posting accepted articles with third parties and archiving items. However, most items in the publication ethics category were not well practiced, with the exception of authorship and intellectual property. All items in the profit model category were infrequently implemented.
Conclusion
These findings serve as a good indicator for Korean journal editors of areas for improvement. It may be helpful to review journals’ publication policies and homepages to comply with international publishing standards.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Транспарентность в научных журналах по био- и пищевым технологиям: сравнительный анализ редакционных политик на основе принципов COPE, OASPA, WAME и DOAJ
М. А. Косычева
Научный редактор и издатель.2025; 9(2): 179. CrossRef
Conformity with Publication Ethics Guidelines among Nigerian Medical Journals
Adaora A Onyiaorah, Euzebus C Ezugwu
Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics.2025; 20(4): 250. CrossRef
The COPE / DOAJ / OASPA / WAME Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing: A Critical Analysis
Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, Salim Moussa
ETHICS IN PROGRESS.2024; 15(1): 130. CrossRef
The Application of Open Science Potentials in Research Processes: A Comprehensive Literature Review
Maryam Zarghani, Leila Nemati-Anaraki, Shahram Sedghi, Abdolreza Noroozi Chakoli, Anisa Rowhani-Farid
Libri.2023; 73(2): 167. 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
Marking the inclusion of the Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing in PubMed Central and strategies to be promoted to a top-tier journal in the nursing category
Sun Huh
Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing.2022; 28(3): 165. 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
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 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

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

12,363 View
143 Download
10 Web of Science
8 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
The indexation of retracted literature in seven principal scholarly databases: a coverage comparison of dimensions, OpenAlex, PubMed, Scilit, Scopus, The Lens and Web of Science
José Luis Ortega, Lorena Delgado-Quirós
Scientometrics.2024; 129(7): 3769. 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

Compliance of “Principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing” in academic society published journals: Hyung Wook Choi, Ye Jin Choi, Soon Kim; Sci Ed. 2019;6(2):112-121. Published online August 19, 2019; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.171

9,682 View
150 Download
12 Web of Science
17 Crossref

Abstract PDF

Purpose
Four international associations, including the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association, the Directory of Open Access Journals, the Committee on Publication Ethics, and the World Association of Medical Editors declared the third version of “Principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing” to ensure transparency and quality in journal publications. This study is aimed at assessing the guidelines from the journals’ websites manually.
Methods
In this study, three researchers investigate the homepages of 781 academic society-published journals that are registered in the Science Citation Index Expanded and whether these journals are effectively adopting these new guidelines. In this paper, 33 items from the guidelines are examined. The 33 items are rearranged into four different categories: basic journal information; publication ethics; copyright and archiving information; and profit model. The researchers count yes or no after checking the adopting status on the journal homepage and dividing into four scales: 0% to 25% for is rarely practiced, 26% to 50% for is poorly practiced, 51% to 75% for is adequately practiced, and 76% to 100% for is well practiced.
Results
Of the 33 items, 10 are found to be poorly or rarely practiced, including readership, data sharing, archiving policies, and profit model information.
Conclusion
It could be the most up-to-date indicator of the current status of applying best practice guidelines. Society journal editors especially from Asia should evaluate their journals regarding “Principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing”.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Транспарентность в научных журналах по био- и пищевым технологиям: сравнительный анализ редакционных политик на основе принципов COPE, OASPA, WAME и DOAJ
М. А. Косычева
Научный редактор и издатель.2025; 9(2): 179. CrossRef
Conformity with Publication Ethics Guidelines among Nigerian Medical Journals
Adaora A Onyiaorah, Euzebus C Ezugwu
Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics.2025; 20(4): 250. CrossRef
Opening up to the open data
Prakash K. Dubey
Journal of Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences.2024; 10(1): 1. CrossRef
The COPE / DOAJ / OASPA / WAME Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing: A Critical Analysis
Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, Salim Moussa
ETHICS IN PROGRESS.2024; 15(1): 130. CrossRef
Journal Data Accessibility Policies: Challenges and Opportunities
Elena V. Tikhonova, Marina A. Kosycheva
Health, Food & Biotechnology.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Prestige of scholarly book publishers—An investigation into criteria, processes, and practices across countries
Eleonora Dagienė
Research Evaluation.2023; 32(2): 356. CrossRef
The use of data repositories in dermatology
Umer Nadir, Loma Dave, Michael D. Yi, Farhana Ikmal Hisham, Murad Alam
Archives of Dermatological Research.2023; 315(6): 1851. 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
Cumplimiento de Estándares Internacionales en Publicaciones Arbitradas Académicas Mexicanas y Guatemaltecas
Humberto Emilio Aguilera Arévalo
Revista Académica Sociedad del Conocimiento Cunzac.2022; 2(1): 89. CrossRef
Open Data Policies among Library and Information Science Journals
Brian Jackson
Publications.2021; 9(2): 25. 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
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
Changes in bibliographic information associated with Korean scientific journals from 2011 to 2019
Yoon Joo Seo, Hye-Min Cho, Sun Huh
Science Editing.2020; 7(1): 11. CrossRef
Compliance of “Principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing” in Korean academic society-published journals listed in Journal Citation Reports
Ye Jin Choi, Hyung Wook Choi, Soon Kim
Science Editing.2020; 7(1): 24. 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
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
Recent trends in medical journals’ data sharing policies and statements of data availability
Sun Huh
Archives of Plastic Surgery.2019; 46(06): 493. CrossRef

Frequently covered diseases in North Korean internal medicine journal Internal Medicine [Naegwa]—Secondary publication: Shin Ha, Yo Han Lee; Sci Ed. 2019;6(2):99-105. Published online August 19, 2019; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.169

8,747 View
147 Download
5 Web of Science
4 Crossref

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material

Purpose
This study aimed to investigate the distribution of research fields and diseases in the North Korean internal medicine journal by using a content analysis and a frequency analysis method.
Methods
All 2,092 articles published in Internal Medicine [Naegwa], a North Korean medical journal, from the first issue of 2006 to the last of 2015, were searched and classified by subspecialty of internal medicines, diseases, and classification codes of the Korean Standard Classification of Diseases version 6.
Results
In total, 1,392 out of the 2,092 articles were classified into the internal medicine field, with the remaining 700 classified as basic medicine, family medicine, or anesthesiology. Among the articles on internal medicine, most concerned the digestive system, followed by circulatory, respiratory, renal, and endocrine systems. Among the 700 articles in other fields, articles on gynecology were most common. According to the analysis of diseases, the most commonly studied in internal medicine were gastrointestinal diseases, hypertension, respiratory infectious diseases, glomerular diseases, and diabetes. Meanwhile, cerebrovascular diseases, herpes zoster, mental and behavioral disorders, and urinary tumors were most covered in the other fields. In the distribution by classification code of the Korean Standard Classification of Diseases version 6, circulatory and digestive diseases accounted for 42.4% of articles.
Conclusion
The results of this study are expected to be exploited to estimate the disease distribution and disease burden in North Korea.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Review of North Korean Reports on Cardiovascular Disease Research and Management
Yun-Seok Choi, Junhyeong Hwang, Min-Ji Lee, Jung-Hun Lee, Ho-Joong Youn
Yonsei Medical Journal.2023; 64(5): 309. CrossRef
Mapping the development of North Korea's domestic nuclear research networks
Philip Baxter, Justin V. Hastings, Philseo Kim, Man‐Sung Yim
Review of Policy Research.2022; 39(2): 219. CrossRef
A critical examination of international research conducted by North Korean authors: Increasing trends of collaborative research between China and North Korea
Eungi Kim, Eun Sil Kim
Scientometrics.2020; 124(1): 429. CrossRef
Surgical Diseases in North Korea: An Overview of North Korean Medical Journals
Sejin Choi, Taehoon Kim, Soyoung Choi, Hee Young Shin
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.2020; 17(24): 9346. CrossRef

Review

Ethical challenges regarding artificial intelligence in medicine from the perspective of scientific editing and peer review: Seong Ho Park, Young-Hak Kim, Jun Young Lee, Soyoung Yoo, Chong Jai Kim; Sci Ed. 2019;6(2):91-98. Published online June 19, 2019; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.164

19,572 View
493 Download
18 Web of Science
19 Crossref

Abstract PDF

This review article aims to highlight several areas in research studies on artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine that currently require additional transparency and explain why additional transparency is needed. Transparency regarding training data, test data and results, interpretation of study results, and the sharing of algorithms and data are major areas for guaranteeing ethical standards in AI research. For transparency in training data, clarifying the biases and errors in training data and the AI algorithms based on these training data prior to their implementation is critical. Furthermore, biases about institutions and socioeconomic groups should be considered. For transparency in test data and test results, authors should state if the test data were collected externally or internally and prospectively or retrospectively at first. It is necessary to distinguish whether datasets were convenience samples consisting of some positive and some negative cases or clinical cohorts. When datasets from multiple institutions were used, authors should report results from each individual institution. Full publication of the results of AI research is also important. For transparency in interpreting study results, authors should interpret the results explicitly and avoid over-interpretation. For transparency by sharing algorithms and data, sharing is required for replication and reproducibility of the research by other researchers. All of the above mentioned high standards regarding transparency of AI research in healthcare should be considered to facilitate the ethical conduct of AI research.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

New institutional theory and AI: toward rethinking of artificial intelligence in organizations
Ihor Rudko, Aysan Bashirpour Bonab, Maria Fedele, Anna Vittoria Formisano
Journal of Management History.2025; 31(2): 261. CrossRef
The role of explainability and transparency in fostering trust in AI healthcare systems: a systematic literature review, open issues and potential solutions
Christopher Ifeanyi Eke, Liyana Shuib
Neural Computing and Applications.2025; 37(4): 1999. CrossRef
Towards Integration of Artificial Intelligence into Medical Devices as a Real-Time Recommender System for Personalised Healthcare: State-of-the-Art and Future Prospects
Talha Iqbal, Mehedi Masud, Bilal Amin, Conor Feely, Mary Faherty, Tim Jones, Michelle Tierney, Atif Shahzad, Patricia Vazquez
Health Sciences Review.2024; : 100150. CrossRef
The Knowledge of Students at Bursa Faculty of Medicine towards Artificial Intelligence: A Survey Study
Deniz GÜVEN, Elif Güler KAZANCI, Ayşe ÖREN, Livanur SEVER, Pelin ÜNLÜ
Journal of Bursa Faculty of Medicine.2024; 2(1): 20. CrossRef
Benefits and Challenges of Using AI for Peer Review: A Study on Researchers’ Perceptions
Louie Giray
The Serials Librarian.2024; 85(5-6): 144. CrossRef
Artificial intelligence technology in MR neuroimaging. А radiologist’s perspective
G. E. Trufanov, A. Yu. Efimtsev
Russian Journal for Personalized Medicine.2023; 3(1): 6. CrossRef
The minefield of indeterminate thyroid nodules: could artificial intelligence be a suitable diagnostic tool?
Vincenzo Fiorentino, Cristina Pizzimenti, Mariausilia Franchina, Marina Gloria Micali, Fernanda Russotto, Ludovica Pepe, Gaetano Basilio Militi, Pietro Tralongo, Francesco Pierconti, Antonio Ieni, Maurizio Martini, Giovanni Tuccari, Esther Diana Rossi, Gu
Diagnostic Histopathology.2023; 29(8): 396. CrossRef
Ethical, legal, and social considerations of AI-based medical decision-support tools: A scoping review
Anto Čartolovni, Ana Tomičić, Elvira Lazić Mosler
International Journal of Medical Informatics.2022; 161: 104738. CrossRef
Transparency of Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare: Insights from Professionals in Computing and Healthcare Worldwide
Jose Bernal, Claudia Mazo
Applied Sciences.2022; 12(20): 10228. CrossRef
Artificial intelligence in the water domain: Opportunities for responsible use
Neelke Doorn
Science of The Total Environment.2021; 755: 142561. CrossRef
Artificial intelligence for ultrasonography: unique opportunities and challenges
Seong Ho Park
Ultrasonography.2021; 40(1): 3. CrossRef
Key Principles of Clinical Validation, Device Approval, and Insurance Coverage Decisions of Artificial Intelligence
Seong Ho Park, Jaesoon Choi, Jeong-Sik Byeon
Korean Journal of Radiology.2021; 22(3): 442. CrossRef
Is it alright to use artificial intelligence in digital health? A systematic literature review on ethical considerations
Nicholas RJ Möllmann, Milad Mirbabaie, Stefan Stieglitz
Health Informatics Journal.2021;[Epub] CrossRef
Presenting machine learning model information to clinical end users with model facts labels
Mark P. Sendak, Michael Gao, Nathan Brajer, Suresh Balu
npj Digital Medicine.2020;[Epub] CrossRef
Artificial intelligence with multi-functional machine learning platform development for better healthcare and precision medicine
Zeeshan Ahmed, Khalid Mohamed, Saman Zeeshan, XinQi Dong
Database.2020;[Epub] CrossRef
The ethics of machine learning in medical sciences: Where do we stand today?
Treena Basu, Sebastian Engel-Wolf, Olaf Menzer
Indian Journal of Dermatology.2020; 65(5): 358. CrossRef
Key principles of clinical validation, device approval, and insurance coverage decisions of artificial intelligence
Seong Ho Park, Jaesoon Choi, Jeong-Sik Byeon
Journal of the Korean Medical Association.2020; 63(11): 696. CrossRef
Reflections as 2020 comes to an end: the editing and educational environment during the COVID-19 pandemic, the power of Scopus and Web of Science in scholarly publishing, journal statistics, and appreciation to reviewers and volunteers
Sun Huh
Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions.2020; 17: 44. CrossRef
What should medical students know about artificial intelligence in medicine?
Seong Ho Park, Kyung-Hyun Do, Sungwon Kim, Joo Hyun Park, Young-Suk Lim
Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions.2019; 16: 18. CrossRef

Original Articles

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; Sci Ed. 2019;6(1):41-46. Published online February 20, 2019; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.154

10,396 View
171 Download
5 Web of Science
6 Crossref

Abstract PDF

Purpose
This study aims to analyze the digital standards of Asian journals registered in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) which has been recognized as an index of quality for open access journals.
Methods
Data including 54 fields of each journal listed in DOAJ were provided by the DOAJ team in June 5, 2018. We focused on 11 fields including digital standards, content licensing types and digital archiving policy.
Results
Based on raw data from DOAJ from June 5, 2018, there are 11,534 journals registered in the directory. Among all journals in the directory, Asian journals comprise 1,972 journals from 18 countries. Indonesian journals rank at the top for Asian journals, with 1,322 journals originating from that country. Other major Asian countries’ registration status includes India (238), South Korea (82), China (80), Malaysia (45), Pakistan (39), Taiwan (30), Thailand (27), Japan (20), and Hong Kong (20). Eighty percent of journals (1,584) are using PDF-only as their full-text format, and DOI is adopted in 852 journals (43%). Almost 98% of journals (1,936) are having a Creative Commons license; however, 85% of journals (1,689) do not have a digital archiving policy.
Conclusion
Generally, digital standards are well implemented in South Korea, and digital archiving/deposit policy is well accepted in Indian journals. Many Asian open access journal editors can refer to this study result when they digitalize their journals in order to meet global standards.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Perceptions of the Pakistani editors for open access journal publishing: a developing country’s perspective
Muhammad Zahid Raza, Muhammad Rafiq, Saira Hanif Soroya
Information Development.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
The COPE / DOAJ / OASPA / WAME Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing: A Critical Analysis
Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, Salim Moussa
ETHICS IN PROGRESS.2024; 15(1): 130. CrossRef
Türkiye'de Açık Dergi Sistemlerinde Yayımlanan Kütüphane ve Bilgi Bilim Dergilerinin Dijital Koruma Durumu: Fatcat Tabanlı Bir Analiz
Kemal Yayla
Bilgi Yönetimi.2024; 7(2): 252. CrossRef
Digital Archiving Policies of Central European Journals Registered in the Directory of Open Access Journals
Branka Marijanović, Hrvoje Stančić
Libri.2023; 73(1): 11. CrossRef
Open-source code to convert Journal Article Tag Suite Extensible Markup Language (JATS XML) to various viewers and other XML types for scholarly journal publishing
Younsang Cho
Science Editing.2022; 9(2): 162. 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

Comparative analysis of manuscript management systems for scholarly publishing: Soon Kim, Hyungwook Choi, Nayon Kim, EunKyung Chung, Jae Yun Lee; Sci Ed. 2018;5(2):124-134. Published online August 20, 2018; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.137

26,889 View
440 Download
9 Web of Science
9 Crossref

Abstract PDF

To improve scholarly communications with scientists throughout the world, an international-level manuscript management system is indispensable. We analyzed the manuscript management systems currently in use in Korea and suggested ways to improve these domestic systems through benchmarking with representative overseas systems. Drawing information from the manufacturer’s documentation, we compared the functionalities of the major manuscript management systems available in Korea to international systems. Based on this analysis, we identified the essential elements necessary to meet international standards. The representative international systems provide an intuitive interface and an efficient communication channel for authors, editors, and reviewers, enabling them to save time. The two domestic paid systems are almost at the international level; however, the free systems developed in Korea need to be upgraded. In particular, more advanced visualization tools, more efficient tools for communication between stakeholders, and convenient linking to external content are needed. Studies of these manuscript management systems, which are essential for the internationalization of domestic journals, can be utilized as primary materials to improve the level of Korean academic journals in response to the rapid changes in modern scholarly communication.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Key trends, challenges, and opportunities in scientific journal management between 2013 and 2023: a systematic review
Muhamad Nur Azmi Wahyudi, Ida Nugroho Saputro, Alhaura Nabighatul Ula, Cahyo Widodo
Science Editing.2025; 12(1): 12. CrossRef
Manuscript management systems require sensible management: The case of authors from different geographic regions
Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva
Science Editor and Publisher.2025; 10(1): 61. CrossRef
Artificial intelligence to support publishing and peer review: A summary and review
Kayvan Kousha, Mike Thelwall
Learned Publishing.2024; 37(1): 4. CrossRef
Procesos editoriales en revistas científicas: Un análisis bibliométrico a partir de artículos en acceso abierto
Elí Vicente Raudales-García , Wileidys Artigas, Benjamín Barón Velandia, Nicolás Sumba Nacipucha , Jorge Cueva Estrada
Biblios Journal of Librarianship and Information Science.2024; (87): e008. CrossRef
Should publishers use online submission systems to harvest authors’ responses to diversity, equity and inclusion?
J. A. Teixeira da Silva
Science Editor and Publisher.2023; 7(2): 210. CrossRef
An Exploratory Study into Professional Scholarly Journals Publishing Software Adoption in Lithuania
Vincas Grigas, Arūnas Gudinavičius, Tomas Petreikis, Andrius Šuminas
Information & Media.2023; 96: 179. CrossRef
A Blockchain-Based Editorial Management System
Eman-Yaser Daraghmi, Mamoun Abu Helou, Yousef-Awwad Daraghmi, omar cheikhrouhou
Security and Communication Networks.2021; 2021: 1. CrossRef
Artificial intelligence-assisted tools for redefining the communication landscape of the scholarly world
Habeeb Ibrahim Abdul Razack, Sam T. Mathew, Fathinul Fikri Ahmad Saad, Saleh A. Alqahtani
Science Editing.2021; 8(2): 134. CrossRef
The “invisible hand” of peer review: The implications of author-referee networks on peer review in a scholarly journal
Pierpaolo Dondio, Niccolò Casnici, Francisco Grimaldo, Nigel Gilbert, Flaminio Squazzoni
Journal of Informetrics.2019; 13(2): 708. CrossRef

Review

Latest trends in innovative global scholarly journal publication and distribution platforms: Soon Kim, Eunkyung Chung, Jae Yun Lee; Sci Ed. 2018;5(2):100-112. Published online August 20, 2018; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.133

20,884 View
258 Download
3 Web of Science
3 Crossref

Abstract PDF

This review article presents the latest trends in innovative global scholarly journal publication and distribution platforms, with implications for local journals. Changes have taken place in distribution policies, as pre-publication distribution has become a viable option, and for post-publication distribution, public access or mandatory open access policies have been introduced for articles supported by public or governmental funds. New formats of articles include graphical abstracts, interactive PDFs, the application of semantic enhancements, and the utilization of research data, social networking sites, such as Mendeley and ResearchGate, have become common sites for information exchange. Altmetrics have been adopted to complement traditional journal metrics. PubMed Central, F1000Research, KoreaMed Synapse, and ScienceCentral have been introduced as innovative full-text scholarly journal distribution systems. To publish web-based scholarly journals, it is necessary to adopt an open platform and to explore options such as an author profile database, an online collaborative editing module, and Crossref text and data mining services. To maximize the influence of local journals, it is necessary to integrate various external tools, such as researcher ID, research data, social media, and altmetrics services.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Social Interaction Skills Collaboration Model of Autism Spectrum Disorder: Bibliometric Analysis in Publication 2013-2023
Diajeng Tyas Pinru Phytanza, Edi Purwanta, Hermanto Hermanto
International Journal of Disabilities Sports and Health Sciences.2024; 7(6): 1290. 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
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

Original Articles

Authors’ perspectives on academic publishing: initial observations from a large-scale global survey: Basil D’Souza, Sneha Kulkarni, Clarinda Cerejo; Sci Ed. 2018;5(1):39-43. Published online February 19, 2018; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.116

16,693 View
284 Download
13 Web of Science
8 Crossref

Abstract PDF

Authors are at the heart of academic publishing, but their voices are underrepresented in discussions about improving the academic publishing system. To understand the viewpoints of authors on various aspects of academic publishing and the challenges they face, we developed a large-scale survey entitled “Author perspectives on the academic publishing process” and made it available in December 2016. The survey has received 8,795 responses; this paper is based on the interim results drawn from 5,293 survey responses, and presents some interesting and thought-provoking trends that were observed in the authors’ responses, such as their interpretation of plagiarism and decisive factors in journal selection, as well as their thoughts on what needs to change in the publishing system for it to be more author-friendly. Some of the most important findings of the survey were: (1) the majority of the authors found manuscript preparation to be the most challenging task in the publication process, (2) the impact factor of a journal was reported to be the most important consideration for journal selection, (3) most authors found journal guidelines to be incomplete, (4) major gaps existed in author-journal communication, and (5) although awareness of ethics was high, awareness of good publication practice standards was low. Moreover, more than half of the participants indicated that among areas for improvement in the publishing system, they would like to see changes in the time it takes to publish a paper, the peer review process, and the fairness and objectivity of the publication process. These findings indicate the necessity of making the journal publication process more author-centered and smoothing the way for authors to get published.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Do prolific arts and humanities authors have publishing preferences?
Yu-Wei Chang, Hsuan-Tung Yeh
Scientometrics.2025; 130(2): 1281. CrossRef
Factors affecting authors' manuscript submission behaviour: A systematic review
Xiaoting Xu, Juan Xie, Jianjun Sun, Ying Cheng
Learned Publishing.2023; 36(2): 285. CrossRef
Authors' choice between parent and mirror journals of Elsevier
Sumiko Asai
Learned Publishing.2023; 36(2): 299. CrossRef
Video or perish? An analysis of video abstract author guidelines
Jianxin Liu
Journal of Librarianship and Information Science.2022; 54(2): 230. CrossRef
Why consistent, clear, and uniform instructions for authors are required
Jean Iwaz
Science Editing.2022; 9(2): 142. CrossRef
Characteristics of high research performance authors in the field of library and information science and those of their articles
Yu-Wei Chang
Scientometrics.2021; 126(4): 3373. CrossRef
Impact of a new institutional medical journal on professional identity development and academic cultural change: A qualitative study
Victoria Hayes, Emma Williams, Kathleen M. Fairfield, Carolyne Falank, Dina McKelvy, Robert Bing‐You
Learned Publishing.2021; 34(4): 602. CrossRef
Are articles in library and information science (LIS) journals primarily contributed to by LIS authors?
Yu-Wei Chang
Scientometrics.2019; 121(1): 81. CrossRef

Language policy and the disengagement of the international academic elite: John Harbord; Sci Ed. 2018;5(1):32-38. Published online February 19, 2018; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.115

15,910 View
229 Download
5 Web of Science
5 Crossref

Abstract PDF

This paper explores the phenomena of academic multiliteracy (the habit of writing academically in more than one language) and of L2 monoliteracy (that of only writing academically in a language that is not one’s own) and their impact on policy. Based on interviews and surveys conducted with 33 multiliterate and 15 L2 monoliterate scholars connected to one university in Central Europe between 2010 and 2014, I show how incentives to publish in English constructed by educational policies often push ambitious young researchers whose first language is not English away from engaging in academic and societal debates in their first language community. They may thus disengage from the national community, with negative consequences for the interaction between global and local that is essential for good governance. To overcome the difficulty young scholars encounter in writing in their native languages, they should be taught writing both in their native language and in English. Furthermore, university and state policies should reward scholars for writing not only for the international community but also for local society.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

EMI, power and expressivism
René Gabriëls, Robert Wilkinson
Journal of English-Medium Instruction.2024; 3(1): 1. CrossRef
Overcoming Cultural Barriers to Scholarly Communication in International Peer-Reviewed Journals
Lilia Raitskaya, Elena Tikhonova
Journal of Language and Education.2020; 6(2): 4. CrossRef
Seven Deadly Sins: Culture’s Effect on Scholarly Editing and Publishing
Lilia Raitskaya, Elena Tikhonova
Journal of Language and Education.2020; 6(3): 167. CrossRef
Pressure to Publish Internationally: Scholarly Writing Coming to the Fore
Lilia Raitskaya, Elena Tikhonova
Journal of Language and Education.2020; 6(1): 4. 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

Reviews

Publication contracts and their legal interpretation in Korea: Seung Jong Oh; Sci Ed. 2018;5(1):21-25. Published online February 19, 2018; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.113

11,345 View
185 Download

Abstract PDF: This study intends to help editors and publishers understand what to be aware of when signing a publishing contract in Korea. The legal interpretation of publishing rights may vary depending on the type of contract. It is vital for publishers to understand the different characteristics of each type of contract: author-publisher agreements, establishment of publishing rights, transfer of the author’s economic rights, and lump-sum agreements. Lump-sum agreements are a unique practice common in Korea, in which intellectual copyright is transferred upon a one-time lump-sum payment. Decisions regarding the infringement of publication rights in a given case will be rendered in accordance with the specific aspects of the relevant type of publication rights, and the work in question must be reviewed to determine whether it shows substantial similarity or sameness in order to prepare for any potential issues. Meanwhile, in Korea, electronic publishing requires an additional agreement separate from the printing publication agreement, but regulations regarding electronic publishing shall be confirmed through international agreements after considering the specific statutes and practices of publication in each country, as legal statutes and their interpretation may vary widely. Editors and publishers of academic papers and books must be aware of the various types of publishing contracts in practice.

Journal Article Tag Suite subset and Schematron: achieving the right balance: Alexander B. Schwarzman; Sci Ed. 2018;5(1):2-15. Published online February 19, 2018; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.111

13,452 View
186 Download
6 Web of Science
6 Crossref

Abstract PDF

Ensuring that published content adheres to the publisher’s business and style rules requires the implementation of quality-control solutions that encompass the entire enterprise, including vendors and in-house staff. The solutions must span the entire life cycle of the manuscript, from extensible markup language conversion to production to post-publication enhancements. Two techniques that may help in achieving this goal are developing Schematron and making a Journal Article Tag Suite subset. Both come with costs: Schematron change management requires development and maintenance of an extensive testbase; making a subset requires comprehensive content analysis and the knowledge of the publishing program’s direction. Achieving the right balance between the two techniques may reduce the costs associated with them.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

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
Reflections as 2020 comes to an end: the editing and educational environment during the COVID-19 pandemic, the power of Scopus and Web of Science in scholarly publishing, journal statistics, and appreciation to reviewers and volunteers
Sun Huh
Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions.2020; 17: 44. CrossRef
Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions will be accepted for inclusion in Scopus
Sun Huh
Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions.2019; 16: 2. 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
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
Journal Metrics of Infection & Chemotherapy and Current Scholarly Journal Publication Issues
Sun Huh
Infection & Chemotherapy.2018; 50(3): 219. CrossRef

Case Studys

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

11,789 View
160 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

Analysis of visits to ScienceCentral, an open access full-text archive of scientific society journal literature: Younsang Cho, Sun Huh; Sci Ed. 2017;4(1):30-33. Published online February 20, 2017; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.86

12,281 View
165 Download
2 Web of Science
2 Crossref

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material

ScienceCentral is a free or open access full-text archive of scientific society journal literature hosted by the Korean Federation of Science and Technology Societies. It was launched in December 2013. We analyzed the number of articles deposited, page views by period, country of visitors, number of visitors, and entry point of visits. Descriptive statistics were presented. We also hypothesized that visitors accessed ScienceCentral mostly through Google and Google Scholar since ScienceCentral allows Googlebot to index it. The number of deposited articles was 19,419 from 124 journals in December 2016. The number of page views per month was 20,228 in December 2016. The top countries of visitors were South Korea (39.9%), the United States (13.26%), India (4.2%), China (3.4%), and Russia (3.2%). The average number of page views per article a month in December 2016 was 1.0. Google and Google Scholar were powerful referral sites to ScienceCentral. Except for direct visits to ScienceCentral, seven out of the top ten access sites to ScienceCentral were Google or Google Scholar sites from a variety of countries. Although the number of visitors and page views has increased continuously, the average number of page views per article a month has not increased.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

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
How to Deal with Ethical Issues Involving Animal Experiments and Identifiable Photographs in Articles Published in Archives of Plastic Surgery
Sun Huh
Archives of Plastic Surgery.2017; 44(06): 475. CrossRef

Review

Quality open access publishing and registration to Directory of Open Access Journals: Xin Bi; Sci Ed. 2017;4(1):3-11. Published online February 20, 2017; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.82

23,191 View
333 Download
12 Web of Science
11 Crossref

Abstract PDF

With the fast development of open access publishing worldwide, Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) as a community-curated online directory that indexes and provides access to high quality, open access, peer-reviewed journals, has been recognized for its high criteria in facilitating high quality open access scholarly publishing and used as the portal for accessing quality open access journals. While the numbers of journal application to be inclusion in DOAJ in Asia are kept increasing dramatically, many editors of these journals are not very clear about the idea or concept of the open access which have been embedded in the application form containing 58 questions falling into several different criteria categories. The very commonly seen misunderstanding of the required item, inaccurate or vague or incomplete and even missing information, poorly organized website, non-transparent process of publishing, especially no open access statement and copyright statement, or conflicts between the policy statements would cause much more communication between the reviewer and the editor and delay the completion of the review. This article gives an in depth introduction to DOAJ criteria and detailed introduction to the general process on how to register to DOAJ, suggestions based on application review also is given for journal editors to better prepare for this application. And it is the most important for editors to keep in mind that to be indexed by DOAJ is not just about filling a form, it is about truly change and adapt to best practices in open access publishing.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Ewha Medical Journal passed the scientific evaluation by PubMed Central and succeeded in being included in DOAJ, but failed to be accepted by Scopus
Sun Huh
Ewha Medical Journal.2025; 48(2): e21. CrossRef
Mapping the open access publications of Indian non-profit organizations over the last 20 years based on OpenAlex insights
Rima Hazarika, Abhijit Roy, K.G. Sudhier
Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
An Altmetrics and citation analysis of selected predatory journals in library and information science field
Ming Chen, Linzi Wang
The Journal of Academic Librarianship.2022; 48(6): 102618. CrossRef
Examining the Research Evolution on the Socio-Economic and Environmental Dimensions on University Social Responsibility
Víctor Meseguer-Sánchez, Emilio Abad-Segura, Luis Jesús Belmonte-Ureña, Valentín Molina-Moreno
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.2020; 17(13): 4729. CrossRef
Mapping the Current Research Agenda on Scholarly Publishing: Scopus-Indexed Reviews
Elena Tikhonova, Lilia Raitskaya
Journal of Language and Education.2020; 6(4): 4. CrossRef
Challenge of Ukrainian academic librarians in an evolving scholarly publishing landscape
Serhii Nazarovets, Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, Maryna Nazarovets
The Journal of Academic Librarianship.2019; 45(1): 9. CrossRef
Comprehensive Approach to Open Access Publishing: Platforms and Tools
Armen Yuri Gasparyan, Marlen Yessirkepov, Alexander A. Voronov, Anna M. Koroleva, George D. Kitas
Journal of Korean Medical Science.2019;[Epub] CrossRef
The DOAJ Spring Cleaning 2016 and What Was Removed—Tragic Loss or Good Riddance?
Jan Erik Frantsvåg
Publications.2019; 7(3): 45. 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
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
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

Original Article

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

18,285 View
152 Download

Abstract 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.

Training Material

Scientific, technical, and medical podcasting in Korea: Harvey E. Schmidt; Sci Ed. 2016;3(1):43-48. Published online February 19, 2016; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.62

13,669 View
135 Download
4 Web of Science
4 Crossref

Abstract PDF

Korean produced scientific, technical and medical (STM) podcasts represent an opportunity for Korean STM publications to further promote themselves as an important center for scientific research. STM Publishing makes results and data available to the greater scientific community as well as the rigors of metadata research. Publishing costs should be considered part of research costs since research results are only of value if published in reputable peer-reviewed journals. Korean journals indexed in the Korean Citation Index (KCI) continue to evolve in quality and as important communities for scientists. Universities, tertiary hospitals, and research institutes throughout Europe and America feature podcasts as an integral part of Web 2.0 and the evolution of e-publishing. However, unlike their Western counterparts, Korean (as well as Chinese and Japanese) STM publications and related organizations have not established hosted STM podcast programs to help propagate and create discussion on important science results. The opportunity of Korean produced STM podcasts to highlight important research and discovery is a cost efficient opportunity that Korean journals, universities, tertiary hospitals, research institutes and industry/academic collaborations should consider. This paper outlines roles, reasons and rational for KCI publications to be featured in a Korean hosted STM podcast.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Contribuições do formato podcast para a divulgação científica em universidades públicas brasileiras
Sara Pires dos Santos, Adriano David Monteiro de Barros, Fernanda Vasques Ferreira
AtoZ: novas práticas em informação e conhecimento.2025; 14: 1. CrossRef
Latest trends in innovative global scholarly journal publication and distribution platforms
Soon Kim, Eunkyung Chung, Jae Yun Lee
Science Editing.2018; 5(2): 100. 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
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

Original Articles

Topics of major current interest in scholarly editing and publishing based on the content analysis of selected journals: Yeonok Chung; Sci Ed. 2015;2(2):59-62. Published online August 14, 2015; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.45

17,597 View
106 Download
1 Web of Science
2 Crossref

Abstract PDF

For the purpose of obtaining a concrete picture of the main issues related to modern scholarly editing and publishing, a content analysis of the recent issues of three international journals devoted to scholarly editing and publishing, which are Learned Publishing, Journal of Scholarly Publishing, and European Science Editing, has been performed. The main topics in each of the 273 articles published in those journals over recent three years have been identified and classified into broad categories. The result has shown that the two most popular topics are open access publishing and peer review process. Other non-traditional topics currently receiving a great attention include bibliometrics, publication ethics, information technology applicable to editing and publishing, digital publishing, and literature databases. In order to keep up with the rapidly-developing field of scholarly editing and publishing and develop a local journal into an international journal of a high standard, it is important to remain keen to the latest development related to these topics.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Транспарентность в научных журналах по био- и пищевым технологиям: сравнительный анализ редакционных политик на основе принципов COPE, OASPA, WAME и DOAJ
М. А. Косычева
Научный редактор и издатель.2025; 9(2): 179. CrossRef
Forecast of the Development of Russian Scientific Journals: The Publishers
O. V. Moskaleva, M. A. Akoev
Scholarly Research and Information.2020; 3(2-3): 131. 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

19,291 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

Training Materials

Applying Open Researchers and Contributors ID in scholarly journals: Jeonghee Im; Sci Ed. 2015;2(1):28-31. Published online February 28, 2015; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.33

21,757 View
124 Download
16 Web of Science
16 Crossref

Abstract PDF

Open Researchers and Contributors ID (ORCID) launched its registry services in October 2012. Consequently, adding personal information to the ORCID registry became routine work for researchers. To add ORCID to an online article, the tag < contrib-id contrib-id-type = “orcid” > needs to be included in the Journal Article Tag Suite extensible markup language file, if such a file has been produced by the publisher. Subsequently, all co-authors’ ORCID can be easily and conveniently collected and then integrated into the manuscript management system. In the current age of information and the Internet, journals need to keep pace with the surge of new standards and technologies. Editors should be able to accept and apply these new systems rapidly.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

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
Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions will be accepted for inclusion in Scopus
Sun Huh
Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions.2019; 16: 2. CrossRef
Endocrinology and Metabolism Has Been Indexed in MEDLINE: A Major Achievement
Won-Young Lee
Endocrinology and Metabolism.2019; 34(2): 138. 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
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
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
Endocrinology and Metabolism Is Indexed in the Emerging Sources Citation Index
Won-Young Lee
Endocrinology and Metabolism.2017; 32(3): 350. CrossRef
How to PrepareEndocrinology and Metabolismfor Reapplication to MEDLINE
Sun Huh
Endocrinology and Metabolism.2017; 32(1): 58. CrossRef
Promotion ofNeurointerventionto International Journal Based on Journal Metrics
Sun Huh
Neurointervention.2016; 11(1): 5. CrossRef
Journal of Gastric Cancer's Promotion to International Journal from the Perspective of Biliometric Analysis
Sun Huh
Journal of Gastric Cancer.2016; 16(1): 8. CrossRef
Status of digital standards in Korean medical journals in 2016
Geum Hee Jeong, Sun Huh
Science Editing.2016; 3(2): 100. CrossRef
Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery's Evolution into an International Journal Based on Journal Metrics
Sun Huh
Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery.2016; 8(2): 127. CrossRef
How much progress has been made in journal metrics two years after the citation analysis of theKorean Journal of Urology?
Sun Huh
Korean Journal of Urology.2015; 56(4): 276. CrossRef
Evidence of the Internationalization ofClinical EndoscopyBased on Journal Metrics
Sun Huh
Clinical Endoscopy.2015; 48(4): 317. CrossRef
The Elevation ofAnnals of Rehabilitation Medicineto the Status of an International Journal After Adopting an English-Only Policy
Sun Huh
Annals of Rehabilitation Medicine.2015; 39(5): 661. CrossRef
How much is Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions promoted based on journal metrics?
Sun Huh
Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions.2015; 12: 57. CrossRef

Journal Article Tag Suite 1.0: National Information Standards Organization standard of journal extensible markup language: Sun Huh; Sci Ed. 2014;1(2):99-104. Published online August 18, 2014; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.2014.1.99

22,970 View
155 Download
23 Web of Science
23 Crossref

Abstract PDF

In the era of information technology, scholarly journals cannot escape the rising tide of technological advancement. To be exposed more easily to readers, the web forms of scholarly journals and articles become more important year after year. Furthermore, there is a trend of print journals closing, and a significant emergence of online journals. Journal Article Tag Suite (JATS) extensible markup language (XML) became an National Information Standards Organization standard language in online journal publishing in 2012. It is an essential format to present readers with a more user-friendly interface. JATS XML was developed by PubMed Central (PMC) XML, which was a deposit form of articles to PMC. Editors and other publishing-related personnel should be able to understand the concept and production process of XML files. When JATS XML is produced, a variety of web presentation views can be generated, such as PubReader and epub 3.0. Further, JATS XML can be easily converted to digital object identifier CrossRef XML, CrossMark XML, and FundRef XML. Small scholarly society journal editors and publishers can promote the visibility of their journals by depositing JATS XML files to PMC or ScienceCentral. Owing to these benefits of JATS XML, publishers and editors should now adopt JATS XML for journal publishing.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Cross-lingual citations in English papers: a large-scale analysis of prevalence, usage, and impact
Tarek Saier, Michael Färber, Tornike Tsereteli
International Journal on Digital Libraries.2022; 23(2): 179. CrossRef
Open-source code to convert Journal Article Tag Suite Extensible Markup Language (JATS XML) to various viewers and other XML types for scholarly journal publishing
Younsang Cho
Science Editing.2022; 9(2): 162. CrossRef
The role of metadata in reproducible computational research
Jeremy Leipzig, Daniel Nüst, Charles Tapley Hoyt, Karthik Ram, Jane Greenberg
Patterns.2021; 2(9): 100322. CrossRef
Semantic Publication of Agricultural Scientific Literature Using Property Graphs
Francisco Abad-Navarro, José Antonio Bernabé-Diaz, Alexander García-Castro, Jesualdo Tomás Fernandez-Breis
Applied Sciences.2020; 10(3): 861. CrossRef
unarXive: a large scholarly data set with publications’ full-text, annotated in-text citations, and links to metadata
Tarek Saier, Michael Färber
Scientometrics.2020; 125(3): 3085. CrossRef
The Thirty-First Year Journey, the Journal of the Korean Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
Hee Jeong Yoo, Min-Hyeon Park, Jae Hyun Yoo, Minha Hong, Geon Ho Bahn
Journal of the Korean Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.2020; 31(4): 201. CrossRef
Improving Publication Pipeline with Automated Biological Entity Detection and Validation Service
Weijia Xu, Amit Gupta, Pankaj Jaiswal, Crispin Taylor, Patti Lockhart, Jennifer Regala
Data and Information Management.2019; 3(1): 3. 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
Finding useful data across multiple biomedical data repositories using DataMed
Lucila Ohno-Machado, Susanna-Assunta Sansone, George Alter, Ian Fore, Jeffrey Grethe, Hua Xu, Alejandra Gonzalez-Beltran, Philippe Rocca-Serra, Anupama E Gururaj, Elizabeth Bell, Ergin Soysal, Nansu Zong, Hyeon-eui Kim
Nature Genetics.2017; 49(6): 816. CrossRef
Promotion ofNeurointerventionto International Journal Based on Journal Metrics
Sun Huh
Neurointervention.2016; 11(1): 5. CrossRef
Journal of Gastric Cancer's Promotion to International Journal from the Perspective of Biliometric Analysis
Sun Huh
Journal of Gastric Cancer.2016; 16(1): 8. CrossRef
Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery's Evolution into an International Journal Based on Journal Metrics
Sun Huh
Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery.2016; 8(2): 127. CrossRef
Natural Language Processing Using Kepler Workflow System: First Steps
Ankit Goyal, Alok Singh, Shitij Bhargava, Daniel Crawl, Ilkay Altintas, Chun-Nan Hsu
Procedia Computer Science.2016; 80: 712. CrossRef
How to Promote the Korean Journal of Child Studies to an International Journal
Sun Huh
Korean Journal of Child Studies.2016; 37(1): 7. CrossRef
Analysis of the suitability of the Korean Federation of Science and Technology Societies journal evaluation tool
Geum‐Hee Jeong, Sun Huh
Learned Publishing.2016; 29(3): 193. CrossRef
Status of digital standards in Korean medical journals in 2016
Geum Hee Jeong, Sun Huh
Science Editing.2016; 3(2): 100. CrossRef
Text mining resources for the life sciences
Piotr Przybyła, Matthew Shardlow, Sophie Aubin, Robert Bossy, Richard Eckart de Castilho, Stelios Piperidis, John McNaught, Sophia Ananiadou
Database.2016;[Epub] CrossRef
Evidence of the Internationalization ofClinical EndoscopyBased on Journal Metrics
Sun Huh
Clinical Endoscopy.2015; 48(4): 317. CrossRef
How much progress has been made in journal metrics two years after the citation analysis of theKorean Journal of Urology?
Sun Huh
Korean Journal of Urology.2015; 56(4): 276. CrossRef
How much is Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions promoted based on journal metrics?
Sun Huh
Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions.2015; 12: 57. CrossRef
The Elevation ofAnnals of Rehabilitation Medicineto the Status of an International Journal After Adopting an English-Only Policy
Sun Huh
Annals of Rehabilitation Medicine.2015; 39(5): 661. CrossRef
How Journal Metrics Illustrate the Transformation of Archives of Plastic Surgery into an International Journal
Sun Huh
Archives of Plastic Surgery.2014; 41(06): 617. CrossRef
What is the position ofClinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicinein its scholarly journal network based on journal metrics?
Sun Huh
Clinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicine.2014; 41(4): 147. CrossRef

Review

The big picture: scholarly publishing trends 2014: Pippa Smart; Sci Ed. 2014;1(2):52-57. Published online August 18, 2014; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.2014.1.52

37,212 View
203 Download
11 Web of Science
10 Crossref

Abstract PDF

It is important for journal editors to keep up to date with the changes happening in the international journal environment to ensure that their own publications remain current and meet international expectations. Dramatic changes have taken place in the journals environment during the last two decades, frequently driven by technology but also by increased global participation in scholarly and scientific research and concern about the commercial influence on dissemination of knowledge. Technical solutions have attempted to address the growth in research but have sometimes added to the tsunami of information and increased the need to manage quality. To this end experiments with the traditional quality control and dissemination systems have been attempted, but news of improvements are frequently overshadowed by alarms about ethical problems. There is particular concern about some of the new publishers who are not adhering to established quality control and ethical practices. Within a potentially fragmenting system, however, there are also emerging collaborative projects helping to knit together the different elements of the publishing landscape to improve quality, linkages and access.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Global trend of clinical biomarkers of health and disease during the period (1913–2021): systematic review and bibliometric analysis
Snezana M. Jovicic
African Journal of Urology.2021;[Epub] CrossRef
Predatory publishing through McCornarck’s information manipulation theory
Harry Kipkemoi Bett
Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication.2020; 69(4/5): 331. CrossRef
Forecast of the Development of Russian Scientific Journals: The Publishers
O. V. Moskaleva, M. A. Akoev
Scholarly Research and Information.2020; 3(2-3): 131. CrossRef
Mapping the Current Research Agenda on Scholarly Publishing: Scopus-Indexed Reviews
Elena Tikhonova, Lilia Raitskaya
Journal of Language and Education.2020; 6(4): 4. CrossRef
English language policies in scientific journals: Signs of change in the field of economics
Ann C. Henshall
Journal of English for Academic Purposes.2018; 36: 26. CrossRef
How open access is crucial to the future of science: A reply
H. Charles Romesburg
The Journal of Wildlife Management.2017; 81(4): 567. CrossRef
Supply chain management 1982–2015: a review
Nasrin Asgari, Ehsan Nikbakhsh, Alex Hill, Reza Zanjirani Farahani
IMA Journal of Management Mathematics.2016; 27(3): 353. CrossRef
Topics of major current interest in scholarly editing and publishing based on the content analysis of selected journals
Yeonok Chung
Science Editing.2015; 2(2): 59. CrossRef
How Green Is This Paper?
Toby Miller
Culture Unbound.2015; 7(4): 588. CrossRef
What is the position ofClinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicinein its scholarly journal network based on journal metrics?
Sun Huh
Clinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicine.2014; 41(4): 147. CrossRef

First
Prev
Page of 2
Next
Last

Search