Science Editing

Original Articles

Changes in bibliographic information associated with Korean scientific journals from 2011 to 2019: Yoon Joo Seo, Hye-Min Cho, Sun Huh; Sci Ed. 2020;7(1):11-15. Published online February 20, 2020; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.184

4,873 View
140 Download
4 Web of Science
4 Crossref

Purpose: This study aimed to examine how the bibliographic information of 558 journals that applied for the Korean Federation of Science and Technology Societies funding in 2011 changed from 2011 to 2019, with the goal of informing the development of Korean scientific journals.
Methods
Between May and October 2012, bibliographic information from 558 journals was obtained from PDF files for the print versions of one issue of 2011 and the journal homepages. In August 2019, the bibliographic information of the same journals was traced based only on the journal websites. We compared bibliographic information.
Results
Excluding 14 journals that were discontinued or integrated with other journals prior to the follow-up in 2019, 544 journals were compared. Over the 8-year period, 121 journals underwent title changes. The number of journals with eISSNs (electronic International Standard Serial Number) increased from 214 (39.3%) in 2011 to 488 (89.7%) in 2019. “Aims and scope” descriptions were found for 291 journals (53.5%) in 2011 and 482 (88.6%) in 2019. The number of English-only journals increased from 163 (30.0%) to 227 (41.7%), and the number of journals with an open access policy rose from 92 (16.9%) to 315 (57.9%). Journals with DOI (digital object identifier) prefixes increased from 256 (47.1%) to 536 (98.5%).
Conclusion
The increased frequency of the above bibliographic information is evidence of the globalization of local journals. However, even in 2019, some journals still lacked the necessary bibliographic information. For better dissemination and promotion of Korean scientific journals, editors and publishers should more critically consider the proper inclusion of information on journal websites.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Comparison of the open access status and metrics of Scopus journals published in East Asian countries: a descriptive study
Eungi Kim, Da-Yeong Jeong
Science Editing.2023; 10(1): 57. 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
PubMed Central as a platform for the survival of open-access biomedical society journals published in Korea
Sun Huh
Science Editing.2021; 8(2): 153. 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

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

6,998 View
127 Download
8 Web of Science
7 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
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

Comparison of the patterns of duplicate articles between KoreaMed and PubMed journals published from 2004 to 2009 according to the categories of duplicate publications: Soo Young Kim, Chong Woo Bae, Hye-Min Cho, Sun Huh; Sci Ed. 2018;5(1):44-48. Published online February 19, 2018; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.117

9,453 View
188 Download
2 Web of Science
3 Crossref

Abstract PDF

This study compared the patterns of duplicate articles between KoreaMed and PubMed journals based on a division of duplicate publications into the 4 categories of ‘copy,’ ‘salami’ (fragmentation), ‘imalas’ (disaggregation), and ‘others,’ as well as in terms of the 11 subcategories suggested by Bae et al., which further elaborate on those 4 main categories. We hypothesized that these 2 groups of articles would show different patterns of duplication. Duplicate publications were identified in a random sample of 5% of the articles from the KoreaMed database published between 2004 and 2009, while all articles with the publication type of ‘duplicate publication’ were selected from PubMed over the same period. The selected articles were classified based on the 4 categories and 11 subcategories of duplicate publications, and the data from the 2 groups were compared. A total of 108 articles were selected from KoreaMed and 45 articles were obtained from PubMed. The category of copy was the most common in both databases. The next most frequent pattern was imalas (disaggregation). Pattern of duplicate publication between 2 databases showed no correlation (P = 0.8754). Although the 108 articles from KoreaMed were allocated to all 11 Bae et al.’s subcategories, those from PubMed were allocated to only 8. The above results showed that the articles in the 2 databases had different patterns of duplication, as defined in terms of the 11 subcategories. The use of these 11 subcategories will help journal editors to develop an appropriate framework for considering a variety of duplication types.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Recent Issues in Medical Journal Publishing and Editing Policies: Adoption of Artificial Intelligence, Preprints, Open Peer Review, Model Text Recycling Policies, Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing 4th Version, and Country Names in Titles
Sun Huh
Neurointervention.2023; 18(1): 2. CrossRef
Analysis of duplicated publications in Russian journals
Yury V. Chekhovich, Andrey V. Khazov
Journal of Informetrics.2022; 16(1): 101246. CrossRef
How many retracted articles indexed in KoreaMed were cited 1 year after retraction notification
Soo Young Kim, Hyun Jung Yi, Hye-Min Cho, Sun Huh
Science Editing.2019; 6(2): 122. CrossRef

Towards the implementation of a system for manuscript editor certification: Hyun Jung Yi, Hye-Min Cho, Hee Kyung Chung, Hwan Tae Ahn, Myung-Soon Kim, Yoon Joo Seo; Sci Ed. 2016;3(1):3-12. Published online February 19, 2016; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.56

13,099 View
142 Download
1 Web of Science
1 Crossref

Abstract PDF

Style and format are important criteria for evaluating a journal and indexing it in major databases. In Korean science, technology, and medical journals, interest in manuscript editing has increased over the past seven to eight years, and the responsibilities of manuscript editors have expanded as well. However, since no clear standards for the roles and qualifications for manuscript editors are yet available, a formal certification system is needed to establish appropriate standards and to provide professional training. To identify ways of developing a manuscript editor certification program in Korea, this study investigated similar certification programs in and outside the country and surveyed 195 Korean editors, manuscript editors, publishers, and medical librarians. The survey revealed that manuscript editors were necessary (mean score of 4.38 on a five-point Likert scale, with a score of 5 indicating strong agreement), and that their main contributions were efficiently managing the editorial board, improving the accuracy of references, and accelerating the editing process. The respondents were also positive about the possibility of implementing a manuscript editor certification; 45.1% showed interest in becoming certified, and 47.1% reported interest in hiring a certified manuscript editor. Regarding the system for issuing certification, respondents favored a professional training course (53.1%), validation of work experience (27.1%), or an examination (16.8%). This study concludes that it is essential to establish a formal certification program to train manuscript editors properly, and an examination system is the most efficient and suitable method for managing the certification process.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Analysis of the results of the first implementation of the Korea Manuscript Editors Certification
Hyun Jung Yi, Jae Hwa Chang, Yoon Joo Seo
Science Editing.2017; 4(1): 34. 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

16,326 View
116 Download
2 Web of Science
2 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

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

Book Review

Scientific Style and Format: The CSE Manual for Authors, Editors, and Publishers (8th edition): Hye-Min Cho; Sci Ed. 2015;2(1):44-45. Published online February 28, 2015; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.38

18,066 View
747 Download

PDF

First
Prev
Page of 1
Next
Last

Search