Science Editing

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; Received September 5, 2024 Accepted November 14, 2024 Published online November 14, 2024; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.348 [Epub ahead of print]

367 View
22 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.

Case Study

Mentorship program to elevate journal quality and rankings in Indonesia: a case study: Ferry Efendi, Hery Purnobasuki, Dessy Harisanty, Diyah Alinia Oktariningtias, Sarah Khairunnisa; Sci Ed. 2024;11(2):149-154. Published online August 20, 2024; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.344

1,067 View
93 Download

Abstract PDF: This article explores the best practices of mentorship programs in all journals at Universitas Airlangga. The university has established a journal mentoring team, as mandated by the rector’s regulation, which is responsible for guiding journals through preparation, submission, management, policy, and overall quality improvement. A case study was conducted to explore the mentoring mechanisms at Universitas Airlangga. Mentors were selected from among experienced editors at the university, each with a distinguished background in managing their own journals. The mentorship program successfully led to the indexing of 14 journals in Scopus, one in Web of Science (WoS), 85 in the Science and Technology Index (SINTA), and 60 in Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). The strategies used can be shared with other universities to assist their journal editors. The mentorship program at Universitas Airlangga has significantly improved the quality and international visibility of its academic journals. This is evidenced by the successful indexing of numerous journals in prestigious databases including Scopus, WoS, SINTA, and DOAJ. The structured mentoring, clear targets, and comprehensive institutional support were instrumental in achieving these results. This model serves as a scalable best practice for other universities seeking to improve their journal quality and global standing.

Training Material

ChatGPT for editors: enhancing efficiency and effectiveness: Yunhee Whang; Sci Ed. 2024;11(1):84-90. Published online February 20, 2024; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.332

2,753 View
156 Download

Abstract PDF: This tutorial examines how ChatGPT can assist journal editors in improving the efficiency and effectiveness of academic publishing. It highlights ChatGPT’s key characteristics, focusing on the use of “Custom instructions” to generate tailored responses and plugin integration for accessing up-to-date information. The tutorial presents practical advice and illustrative examples to demonstrate how editors can adeptly employ these features to improve their work practices. It covers the intricacies of developing advanced prompts and the application of zero-shot and few-shot prompting techniques across a range of editorial tasks, including literature reviews, training novice reviewers, and improving language quality. Furthermore, the tutorial addresses potential challenges inherent in using ChatGPT, which include a lack of precision and sensitivity to cultural nuances, the presence of biases, and a limited vocabulary in specialized fields, among others. The tutorial concludes by advocating for an integrated approach, combining ChatGPT’s technological advancements with the critical insight of human editors. This approach emphasizes that ChatGPT should be recognized not as a replacement for human judgment and expertise in editorial processes, but as a tool that plays a supportive and complementary role.

Original Articles

Adherence to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors–recommended gender equity policy in nursing journals listed in MEDLINE or PubMed Central: a descriptive study: Eun Jeong Ko, Geum Hee Jeong; Sci Ed. 2024;11(1):33-37. Published online February 20, 2024; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.328

2,484 View
89 Download
1 Crossref

Abstract PDF

Purpose
The evolving landscape of nursing research emphasizes inclusive representation. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has established guidelines to ensure the fair representation of various demographic variables, including age, sex, and ethnicity. This study aimed to evaluate the adherence of nursing journals indexed in MEDLINE or PubMed Central to the ICMJE’s directives on gender equity, given that journals indexed in MEDLINE and PubMed Central typically adhere to the ICMJE’s guidelines.
Methods
A descriptive literature review methodology was employed to analyze 160 nursing journals listed in two databases as of July 28, 2023. The website of each journal was searched, and the most recent original article from each was selected. These articles were then evaluated for their alignment with the ICMJE guidelines on gender equity. Descriptive statistics were applied to categorize and enumerate the cases.
Results
Of the articles reviewed from 160 journals, 115 dealt with human populations. Of these, 93 required a description of gender equity. Within this subset, 83 articles distinguished between the genders of human subjects. Gender-based interpretations were provided in 15 articles, while another 68 did not offer an interpretation of differences by gender. Among the 10 articles that did not delineate gender, only two provided a rationale for this omission.
Conclusion
Among recent articles published in the nursing journals indexed in MEDLINE and PubMed Central, only 16.1% presented clear gender analyses. These findings highlight the need for editors to strengthen their dedication to gender equity within their editorial policies.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

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

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; Sci Ed. 2023;10(2):141-148. Published online August 17, 2023; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.316

2,749 View
227 Download

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material: Purpose
This study aimed to ascertain the attitudes of Korean scholarly journal editors and publishers toward research data sharing policies and the publication of data papers through a survey.
Methods
Between May 16 and June 16, 2023, a SurveyMonkey survey link was distributed to 388 societies, including 270 member societies of the Korean Council of Science Editors and 118 societies that used an e-submission system operated by the Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information. A total of 78 societies (20.1%) responded, from which 72 responses (18.6%) were analyzed after excluding invalid responses.
Results
Out of the representatives of 72 journals, 20 editors or publishers (27.8%) declared a data sharing policy. Those journals that did not have such a policy often expressed uncertainty about their future plans regarding this issue. A common concern was a potential decrease in manuscript submissions, primarily due to the increased workload this policy might impose on editors and manuscript editors. Four respondents (5.6%) had published data papers, with two of them including this as a publication type in their author guidelines. Concerns about copyright and data licensing were cited as drawbacks to publishing data papers. However, the expansion of publication types and the promotion of data reuse were viewed as benefits.
Conclusion
Korean scholarly journal editors’ and publishers’ attitudes toward data sharing policy and publishing data papers are not yet favorable. More training courses are needed to raise awareness of data sharing platforms and emphasize the need for research data sharing and data papers.

Development of a decision-support tool to quantify authorship contributions in clinical trial publications: Sam T. Mathew, Habeeb Ibrahim Abdul Razack, Prasanth Viswanathan; Sci Ed. 2022;9(1):22-29. Published online February 20, 2022; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.259

5,971 View
347 Download

Abstract PDF: Purpose
This study aimed to develop a decision-support tool to quantitatively determine authorship in clinical trial publications.
Methods
The tool was developed in three phases: consolidation of authorship recommendations from the Good Publication Practice (GPP) and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) guidelines, identifying and scoring attributes using a 5-point Likert scale or a dichotomous scale, and soliciting feedback from editors and researchers.
Results
The authorship criteria stipulated by the ICMJE and GPP recommendations were categorized into 2 Modules. Criterion 1 and the related GPP recommendations formed Module 1 (sub-criteria: contribution to design, data generation, and interpretation), while Module 2 was based on criteria 2 to 4 and the related GPP recommendations (sub-criteria: contribution to manuscript preparation and approval). The two modules with relevant sub-criteria were then differentiated into attributes (n = 17 in Module 1, n = 12 in Module 2). An individual contributor can be scored for each sub-criterion by summing the related attribute values; the sum of sub-criteria scores constituted the module score (Module 1 score: 70 [contribution to conception or design of the study, 20; data acquisition, 7; data analysis, 27; interpretation of data, 16]; Module 2 score: 50 [content development, 27; content review, 18; accountability, 5]). The concept was integrated into Microsoft Excel with adequate formulae and macros. A threshold of 50% for each sub-criterion and each module, with an overall score of 65%, is predefined as qualifying for authorship.
Conclusion
This authorship decision-support tool would be helpful for clinical trial sponsors to assess and provide authorship to deserving contributors.

The opinions of Indian dental faculty members on harmonizing manuscript preparation and the submission guidelines of journals: Gadde Praveen, Harsha GVD, Swati G Naidu, Dharani ASD; Sci Ed. 2022;9(1):15-21. Published online February 20, 2022; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.258

6,650 View
272 Download
2 Web of Science
3 Crossref

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material

Purpose
Authors of scholarly writing are underrepresented in discussions about improving the academic publishing system. The objective of this study was to assess the possibility of harmonizing manuscript preparation and the submission guidelines of journals by assessing the opinions of dental faculty members who worked in the state of Andhra Pradesh, India.
Methods
A cross-sectional survey of 1,286 participants from 16 dental schools in Andhra Pradesh was conducted from March 15, 2021 to April 15, 2021. The questionnaire addressed the participants’ demographic details and perspectives on the guidelines for manuscript preparation and the need to harmonize those guidelines with the publication process. The online questionnaire was generated using Google Forms and consisted of six dichotomous, one multiple-choice, and seven Likert scale items. Descriptive statistics were obtained.
Results
Of the 894 (69.5%) dental faculty members who responded, 448 (50.1%) were not aware of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors’ guidelines for manuscript preparation and submission. During the manuscript revision process, 792 (95.5%) had experienced difficulty with the variation in author guidelines for each journal, especially the guidelines for formatting tables, reference style, and citation of references in-text. The idea of a standardized template for manuscript preparation and submission was supported by 800 respondents (86.7%).
Conclusion
Dental faculty members in India experienced difficulty in manuscript preparation for medical journals due to the differing editorial policies among journals. Therefore, a standardized template providing uniformity in style and format is needed.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Investigating Strategies for Writing and Publishing a Scientific Article in an International Journal
Pervaiz Yaseeni, Mohammad Qaseem Kashaf, Fahim Rahimi
Nangarhar University Social Science Journal.2024; 1(01): 1. CrossRef
Research publications of Australia’s natural history museums, 1981–2020: Enduring relevance in a changing world
Tayla A. Green, Pat A. Hutchings, Fiona R. Scarff, James R. Tweedley, Michael C. Calver, Claudia Noemi González Brambila
PLOS ONE.2023; 18(6): e0287659. CrossRef
Why consistent, clear, and uniform instructions for authors are required
Jean Iwaz
Science Editing.2022; 9(2): 142. 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

5,971 View
200 Download
6 Web of Science
7 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

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

Data journals: types of peer review, review criteria, and editorial committee members’ positions: Sunkyung Seo, Jihyun Kim; Sci Ed. 2020;7(2):130-135. Published online August 20, 2020; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.207

8,179 View
172 Download
4 Web of Science
4 Crossref

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material

Purpose
This study analyzed the peer review systems, criteria, and editorial committee structures of data journals, aiming to determine the current state of data peer review and to offer suggestions.
Methods
We analyzed peer review systems and criteria for peer review in nine data journals indexed by Web of Science, as well as the positions of the editorial committee members of the journals. Each data journal’s website was initially surveyed, and the editors-in-chief were queried via email about any information not found on the websites. The peer review criteria of the journals were analyzed in terms of data quality, metadata quality, and general quality.
Results
Seven of the nine data journals adopted single-blind and open review peer review methods. The remaining two implemented modified models, such as interactive and community review. In the peer review criteria, there was a shared emphasis on the appropriateness of data production methodology and detailed descriptions. The editorial committees of the journals tended to have subject editors or subject advisory boards, while a few journals included positions with the responsibility of evaluating the technical quality of data.
Conclusion
Creating a community of subject experts and securing various editorial positions for peer review are necessary for data journals to achieve data quality assurance and to promote reuse. New practices will emerge in terms of data peer review models, criteria, and editorial positions, and further research needs to be conducted.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Unleashing the power of AI in science-key considerations for materials data preparation
Yongchao Lu, Hong Wang, Lanting Zhang, Ning Yu, Siqi Shi, Hang Su
Scientific Data.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Dissemination effect of data papers on scientific datasets
Hong Jiao, Yuhong Qiu, Xiaowei Ma, Bo Yang
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology.2024; 75(2): 115. CrossRef
The data paper as a sociolinguistic epistemic object: A content analysis on the rhetorical moves used in data paper abstracts
Kai Li, Chenyue Jiao
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology.2022; 73(6): 834. 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

Case Study

Analysis of Korean journals rejected by Scopus since 2011: Hyunju Jang; Sci Ed. 2020;7(1):50-54. Published online February 20, 2020; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.189

5,126 View
149 Download

Abstract PDF: This paper aims to provide publishers and societies who plan to apply for their journals to be listed in Scopus with critical guidelines to evaluate their performance from an objective, globally-informed perspective. It presents a qualitative case study of how applications of Korean journals to Scopus have been evaluated over a 9-year period (2011–2019). A content analysis was conducted of 106 applications that were rejected by the Content Selection and Advisory Board, according to a combination of 14 quantitative and qualitative selection criteria. This case study was used to categorize instances of failure and to illustrate practical strategies for local journals to use when applying to Scopus based on the lessons to be learned from rejected cases. The results of the analysis show that local journals should enhance the quality of the articles they publish, review why the journal should be considered international, and clearly address editorial policies and the concept, scope, and strategies of the journal.

Review

History of the Scopus Expert Content Selection and Advisory Committee of Korea: Hyungsun Kim; Sci Ed. 2020;7(1):6-10. Published online February 20, 2020; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.183

6,222 View
121 Download
2 Web of Science
2 Crossref

Abstract PDF

With the objective of improving the quality of Korean journals and elevating them to international standards, the National Research Foundation of Korea, in consultation with Elsevier, formed the Scopus Expert Content Selection and Advisory Committee-Korea (ECSAC-Korea) as a local selection committee in August 2012. The committee reviews Korean journals for Scopus indexing and recommends them to the Scopus Content Selection and Advisory Board. In September 2019, ECSAC-Korea became part of the Korean Council of Science Editors (KCSE). This article describes the current status of Scopus indexing in Korea and the history, organizational structure, and role of ECSAC-Korea as part of the KCSE. The article also introduces the members of ECSAC-Korea and the KCSE steering committee for Scopus ECSAC-Korea, who have been active since September 2019.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Role of academic publishers in 10 years: a perspective from the Chairman of Elsevier
Youngsuk Chi
Science Editing.2022; 9(1): 46. CrossRef
Presidential address: How to cope with the present environment of scholarly journal publishing
Sun Huh
Science Editing.2020; 7(1): 1. CrossRef

Case Study

Compliance of education journals in Vietnam with the minimum criteria to be indexed in the ASEAN Citation Index and Scopus: Trung Tran, Loc Thi My Nguyen, Thanh Thi Nghiem, Hien Thi Thu Le, Cuong Huu Nguyen, Thuy Phuong La, Trung Tien Nguyen, Hang Thi-Thu Nguyen; Sci Ed. 2019;6(2):142-147. Published online August 19, 2019; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.175

8,320 View
137 Download

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material: This study aimed at elucidating the present situation of scholarly journals published in Vietnam according to the minimum criteria to be indexed in the ASEAN Citation Index (ACI) and Scopus, with the goal of suggesting development strategies for scholarly journals in Vietnam. From the 387 journals accredited by the Vietnamese State Council for Professorship, 13 education journals were arbitrarily selected, and their compliance with the five minimum criteria for the ACI (peer review, timeliness, abstracts in English, references in Roman script, and a website in English) and the six minimum criteria for Scopus (peer review, timeline, abstracts in English, references in Roman characters, Electronic International Standard Serial Number [ISSN], and publication ethics) were assessed. Two of the 13 journals were eligible to be indexed in the ACI, while none fulfilled the minimum criteria to be indexed in Scopus. An urgent task for the editors of those journals is to establish an informative journal homepage in English that provides basic information on the journal. Then, an Electronic ISSN can be obtained from the ISSN International Center. Furthermore, the following steps are suggested for journal promotion: establishment of appropriate editorial policies and publication ethics procedures, improvement of research integrity, enhancement of the journals’ reputation in the international scientific community, and improvement of the online publishing system by adopting a journal manuscript management system. To achieve those goals, financial support from the Vietnamese government will be invaluable.

Original Article

Current and planned adoption of data sharing policies by editors of Korean scholarly journals: Soo Young Kim, Hyun Jung Yi, Sun Huh; Sci Ed. 2019;6(1):19-24. Published online February 20, 2019; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.151

7,810 View
176 Download
14 Web of Science
18 Crossref

Abstract PDF

Purpose
This study analyzed the present status of data sharing polices and attitudes towards such policies through a web-based survey of editors of scholarly journals published in Korea.
Methods
From December 26, 2018 to January 3, 2019, a survey was distributed to 1,055 persons listed in the member directories of both the Korean Council of Science Editors and the Korean Federation of Science & Technology Societies. The survey contained four items on subjects’ information, three items that gathered information about the journals, and two further items on reasons for adopting or not adopting a data sharing policy and further opinions about such policies.
Results
Of the 100 respondents (from 100 journals), 13 stated that their journals had already adopted a data sharing policy. The strength of the policy was recommendation-only in 10 of those 13 journals. The most frequent reason for adopting a data sharing policy was to follow international trends. The repository sites were the Harvard Dataverse for two journals and Mendeley Data for one. The most common reasons for not adopting a data sharing policy were a lack of knowledge on data sharing, the possibility that submitters would not want to share their data, and the questionable effect of data sharing on scientific development.
Conclusion
Data sharing policies were uncommon among Korean scholarly journals. The advantages and disadvantages of adopting such policies should be discussed more actively among editors and researchers. Furthermore, data sharing infrastructure and training courses are required for data sharing policies to be established in scholarly journals in Korea.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Research data policy: a library and information science publishers’ perspective
Kavya Asok, Dinesh Kumar Gupta, Prashant Shrivastava
Quality & Quantity.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Analyzing Data Sharing Policies in Library and Information Science: Journal Metrics, Open Access Status, and Publisher Volume
Eungi Kim, Kristine Joy Tabogoc, Jang Won Chae
Publications.2024; 12(4): 39. 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
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
Research data policies of journals in the Chinese Science Citation Database based on the language, publisher, discipline, access model and metrics
Yu Wang, Beibei Chen, Liangbin Zhao, Yuanxiang Zeng
Learned Publishing.2022; 35(1): 30. CrossRef
Ten Tips for Performing Your First Peer Review: The Next Step for the Aspiring Academic Plastic Surgeon
Martin Frendø, Andreas Frithioff, Steven Arild Wuyts Andersen
Archives of Plastic Surgery.2022; 49(04): 538. CrossRef
Status and factors associated with the adoption of data sharing policies in Asian journals
Jihyun Kim, Seo Young Bai
Science Editing.2022; 9(2): 97. CrossRef
Open Data Policies among Library and Information Science Journals
Brian Jackson
Publications.2021; 9(2): 25. 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 to Deal with the Concept of Authorship and the Approval of an Institutional Review Board When Writing and Editing Journal Articles
Sun Huh
Laboratory Medicine and Quality Assurance.2020; 42(2): 63. 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
Status of the data sharing policies of scholarly journals published in Brazil, France, and Korea and listed in both the 2018 Scimago Journal and Country Ranking and the Web of Science
Geum Hee Jeong
Science Editing.2020; 7(2): 136. 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
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
Data sharing policies of journals in life, health, and physical sciences indexed in Journal Citation Reports
Jihyun Kim, Soon Kim, Hye-Min Cho, Jae Hwa Chang, Soo Young Kim
PeerJ.2020; 8: e9924. 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
Recent trends in medical journals’ data sharing policies and statements of data availability
Sun Huh
Archives of Plastic Surgery.2019; 46(06): 493. CrossRef
Strategie postępowania z danymi badawczymi w polskich i zagranicznych czasopismach reprezentujących nauki historyczne
Adam Jachimczyk
Studia Medioznawcze.2019; 21(1): 475. CrossRef

Review

The 30-year publication history of Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences: Jong Kyu Ha, Cheol Heui Yun; Sci Ed. 2019;6(1):10-18. Published online February 20, 2019; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.150

8,419 View
130 Download
1 Web of Science
1 Crossref

Abstract PDF

Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences (AJAS) is the official journal of the Asian-Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies and was founded in 1988 in Korea. The journal was created to serve the animal industry and academia in the Asian-Australasian region through the efficient publication and distribution of scientific information on animal sciences. At the beginning, there was neither a real need expressed by member countries nor a firm belief in the success of such publication activity in Asia. However, a few dedicated individuals, led by Prof. In K. Han, the first editor-in-chief, were able to turn AJAS into one of the most respected global journals in animal sciences. Over the last three decades, AJAS has achieved notable development in the quantity and quality of the articles and their publication process. AJAS initially published four issues per year; this number grew to six issues in 1995-1998, eight issues in 1999, and 12 issues from 2000 onward. Overall, the journal has published more than 5,700 articles. Total citation frequency in 1997, when AJAS was first indexed by SCIE, was lower than 100, but by 2017, it was more than 4,000. Similar improvement was seen in the two-year impact factor, which was 0.094 in 1997 and rose to 1.243 by 2017. This article aims to introduce the development of the AJAS editorial system, manuscript submission, publication activities, and citation frequency. Additionally, a special development, called the AJAS 2020 program, is introduced as a reference for other journals.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Leadership of AAAP scientists and journals in animal science: achievements, limitations, and challenges
Jong K. Ha
Animal Bioscience.2023; 36(1): 1. CrossRef

Training Material

How to romanize Korean characters in international journals: Sun Huh; Sci Ed. 2017;4(2):80-85. Published online August 16, 2017; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.100

15,310 View
272 Download

Abstract PDF: For editors and manuscript editors, the romanization of Korean characters is a topic that should be understood thoroughly, because Korean proper nouns have become more widely used worldwide due to phenomena such as Hallyu (the Korean wave). In this report, I describe the 2 major romanization systems used in Korea: the Korean government’s romanization system and the McCune-Reischauer system. I also describe the transliteration guidelines presented in a variety of reference styles, such as the CSE (Council of Science Editors), ACS (American Chemical Society), AMA (American Medical Association), APA (American Psychological Association), IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) styles and the NLM (National Library of Medicine) style guide. I found that 2 journals have adopted the Korean government’s romanization system, while 10 use the McCune-Reischauer system. Other journals do not specifically mention a romanization system. Editors should select a romanization system and use it consistently. When presenting a reference that includes romanized text, the journal’s house style should be followed, based on international reference citation styles. Chinese characters in documents published in Korea should be romanized according to the Korean pronunciation.

First
Prev
Page of 2
Next
Last

Search