Science Editing

Case Studys

Was the number of submissions to scholarly journals in Korea affected by the COVID-19 pandemic?: Sun Huh; Sci Ed. 2021;8(1):117-122. Published online February 20, 2021; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.239

4,201 View
98 Download
3 Web of Science
3 Crossref

This study investigated whether there was an increase in submissions to scholarly journals in Korea according to journals’ field and indexation status in Scopus or Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) in 2020, the year when the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic first spread throughout the world. The analysis included 60 journals with esubmission systems operated by M2PI. Yearly and monthly submissions were counted from 2016 to 2020. The yearly proportional change was also calculated. In 2020, submissions soared for medical journals indexed in Scopus/SCIE (49.5%), corresponding to an increase of 36.9% relative to the expected number of submissions. There was also a surge of submissions to these journals from March to July 2020. However, non-medical journals and medical journals not indexed in Scopus/SCIE did not show an increase in submissions. The number of submissions to scholarly journals in Korea was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic in a specific subset of journals. The background of the spike in submissions is required to be re-investigated. Editors’ burden also should be mitigated through editorial board members’ help and publishers’ support.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Emergence of the metaverse and ChatGPT in journal publishing after the COVID-19 pandemic
Sun Huh
Science Editing.2023; 10(1): 1. CrossRef
Application of computer-based testing in the Korean Medical Licensing Examination, the emergence of the metaverse in medical education, journal metrics and statistics, and appreciation to reviewers and volunteers
Sun Huh
Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions.2022; 19: 2. CrossRef
Review of studies about bat-fly interactions inside roosts, with observations on partnership patterns for publications
Gustavo Lima Urbieta, Gustavo Graciolli, Valéria da Cunha Tavares
Parasitology Research.2022; 121(11): 3051. CrossRef

Consultation questions on publication ethics from 2016 to 2020 addressed by the Committee on Publication Ethics of the Korean Council of Science Editors: Woo Jin Son, Cheol-Heui Yun; Sci Ed. 2021;8(1):112-116. Published online February 20, 2021; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.238

4,113 View
86 Download
1 Crossref

Abstract PDF

With the goal of improving the publishing ecosystem and promoting transparency in journal publishing, we describe some recent cases in scientific publishing in Korea. The current article summarizes ethical inquiries from domestic journals and publishers, most of whom are members of the Korean Council of Science Editors. We selected 15 representative questions asked during the last 4 years. Those inquiries were classified into hot topics such as plagiarism, duplicate publications, multiple submission, and others (informed consent, copyright, compliance with journal regulations, authors’ responsibilities, and voluntary retraction requests). When plagiarism is suspected, editors and reviewers should assess the situation following the relevant rules and procedures, and if necessary, the manuscript should be rejected. Cases of duplicate publication should be clearly stated in both papers based on the explicit agreement of the editor-in-chief of both journals. As a general rule, the entire content of an article should be published in one issue, but if the article is too long, it may need to be published in two issues. Permission from both journals is required. The abstract and references should be separated accordingly. In cases of copyright conflict, voluntary withdrawal of a paper, or non-compliance with publishing regulations, the manuscript must be withdrawn according to specific procedures (referring to the COPE flow chart). All correspondence regarding a manuscript should be with the corresponding author, who communicates directly with the journal. We hope that these recommendations will help readers in the field of scientific publishing to address issues related to publication ethics.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

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

Original Article

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

12,669 View
244 Download
12 Web of Science
7 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

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

First
Prev
Page of 1
Next
Last

Search