Science Editing

Reviews

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; Sci Ed. 2025;12(1):12-19. Published online February 11, 2025; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.359

523 View
47 Download

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material: Purpose
Scientific journals play a pivotal role in disseminating research findings, validating methodologies, and promoting academic discourse. In the past decade, technological advancements, global collaborations, and evolving editorial policies have driven significant transformations in journal management. This systematic literature review investigated the key trends, challenges, and opportunities in scientific journal management between 2013 and 2023.
Methods
Utilizing a PRISMA-guided methodology, 26 peer-reviewed articles from the Scopus database were analyzed.
Results
The findings reveal five primary themes: (1) journal management systems and technological improvements; (2) editorial processes, policies, and best practices; (3) metrics, evaluation, and scientometrics; (4) case studies and implementation; and (5) ethical, social, and equity considerations. Technological innovations, such as artificial intelligence–driven tools, improved plagiarism detection systems, and semantic workflows, have improved operational efficiency. Editorial best practices and evaluation metrics have evolved to promote transparency, accountability, and research integrity. However, persistent challenges include financial sustainability, disparities in gender representation, and maintaining consistency in editorial quality.
Conclusion
This review underscores the importance of adaptive strategies and innovative frameworks in ensuring the long-term sustainability, accessibility, and impact of scholarly journals in a rapidly evolving academic publishing landscape.

How to review and assess a systematic review and meta-analysis article: Seung-Kwon Myung; Sci Ed. 2023;10(2):119-126. Published online April 28, 2023; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.306

4,186 View
362 Download
1 Crossref

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become central in many research fields, particularly medicine. They offer the highest level of evidence in evidence-based medicine and support the development and revision of clinical practice guidelines, which offer recommendations for clinicians caring for patients with specific diseases and conditions. This review summarizes the concepts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses and provides guidance on reviewing and assessing such papers. A systematic review refers to a review of a research question that uses explicit and systematic methods to identify, select, and critically appraise relevant research. In contrast, a meta-analysis is a quantitative statistical analysis that combines individual results on the same research question to estimate the common or mean effect. Conducting a meta-analysis involves defining a research topic, selecting a study design, searching literature in electronic databases, selecting relevant studies, and conducting the analysis. One can assess the findings of a meta-analysis by interpreting a forest plot and a funnel plot and by examining heterogeneity. When reviewing systematic reviews and meta-analyses, several essential points must be considered, including the originality and significance of the work, the comprehensiveness of the database search, the selection of studies based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, subgroup analyses by various factors, and the interpretation of the results based on the levels of evidence. This review will provide readers with helpful guidance to help them read, understand, and evaluate these articles.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Unravelling the associations between dissociation and emotion (dys)regulation: A multidimensional meta-analytic review
Serena Bruno, Camilla Tacchino, Gerardo Anconetani, Patrizia Velotti
Journal of Affective Disorders.2025; 380: 808. CrossRef

First
Prev
Page of 1
Next
Last

Search