Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Science Editing : Science Editing



Page Path
HOME > Search
2 "Social media"
Article category
Publication year
Funded articles
Types, limitations, and possible alternatives of peer review based on the literature and surgeons’ opinions via Twitter: a narrative review
Sameh Hany Emile, Hytham K. S. Hamid, Semra Demirli Atici, Doga Nur Kosker, Mario Virgilio Papa, Hossam Elfeki, Chee Yang Tan, Alaa El-Hussuna, Steven D. Wexner
Sci Ed. 2022;9(1):3-14.   Published online February 20, 2022
  • 5,764 View
  • 308 Download
AbstractAbstract PDF
This review aimed to illustrate the types, limitations, and possible alternatives of peer review (PR) based on a literature review together with the opinions of a social media audience via Twitter. This study was conducted via the #OpenSourceResearch collaborative platform and combined a comprehensive literature search on the current PR system with the opinions of a social media audience of surgeons who are actively engaged in the current PR system. Six independent researchers conducted a literature search of electronic databases in addition to Google Scholar. Electronic polls were organized via Twitter to assess surgeons’ opinions on the current PR system and potential alternative approaches. PR can be classified into single-blind, double-blind, triple-blind, and open PR. Newer PR systems include interactive platforms, prepublication and postpublication commenting or review, transparent review, and collaborative review. The main limitations of the current PR system are its allegedly time-consuming nature and inconsistent, biased, and non-transparent results. Suggestions to improve the PR process include employing an interactive, double-blind PR system, using artificial intelligence to recruit reviewers, providing incentives for reviewers, and using PR templates. The above results offer several concepts for possible alternative approaches and modifications to this critically important process.
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
  • 16,459 View
  • 235 Download
  • 3 Web of Science
  • 2 Crossref
AbstractAbstract 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 to this article as recorded by  
  • 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

Science Editing : Science Editing