Science Editing

Original Articles

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

1,801 View
214 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.

Korean researchers’ motivations for publishing in data journals and the usefulness of their data: a qualitative study: Jungyeoun Lee, Jihyun Kim; Sci Ed. 2021;8(2):145-152. Published online August 20, 2021; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.246

3,680 View
184 Download
2 Web of Science
2 Crossref

Purpose: This study investigated the usefulness and limitations of data journals by analyzing motivations for submission, review and publication processes according to researchers with experience publishing in data journals.
Methods
Among 79 data journals indexed in Web of Science, we selected four data journals where data papers accounted for more than 20% of the publication volume and whose corresponding authors belonged to South Korean research institutes. A qualitative analysis was conducted of the subjective experiences of seven corresponding authors who agreed to participate in interviews. To analyze interview transcriptions, clusters were created by restructuring the theme nodes using Nvivo 12.
Results
The most important element of data journals to researchers was their usefulness for obtaining credit for research performance. Since the data in repositories linked to data papers are screened using journals’ review processes, the validity, accuracy, reusability, and reliability of data are ensured. In addition, data journals provide a basis for data sharing using repositories and data-centered follow-up research using citations and offer detailed descriptions of data.
Conclusion
Data journals play a leading role in data-centered research. Data papers are recognized as research achievements through citations in the same way as research papers published in conventional journals, but there was also a perception that it is difficult to attain a similar level of academic recognition with data papers as with research papers. However, researchers highly valued the usefulness of data journals, and data journals should thus be developed into new academic communication channels that enhance data sharing and reuse.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Development and validation of the motivation to publish scale-scientific articles (EMP-AC) for Peruvian university students
Oscar Mamani-Benito, Julio Torres-Miranda, Edison Effer Apaza-Tarqui, Madona Tito-Betancur, Wilter C. Morales-García, Josué Edison Turpo-Chaparro
Frontiers in Education.2023;[Epub] 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

An analysis of data paper templates and guidelines: types of contextual information described by data journals: Jihyun Kim; Sci Ed. 2020;7(1):16-23. Published online February 20, 2020; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.185

6,262 View
176 Download
8 Web of Science
10 Crossref

Abstract PDF

Purpose: Data papers are a promising genre of scholarly communication, in which research data are described, shared, and published. Rich documentation of data, including adequate contextual information, enhances the potential of data reuse. This study investigated the extent to which the components of data papers specified by journals represented the types of contextual information necessary for data reuse.
Methods
A content analysis of 15 data paper templates/guidelines from 24 data journals indexed by the Web of Science was performed. A coding scheme was developed based on previous studies, consisting of four categories: general data set properties, data production information, repository information, and reuse information.
Results
Only a few types of contextual information were commonly requested by the journals. Except data format information and file names, general data set properties were specified less often than other categories of contextual information. Researchers were frequently asked to provide data production information, such as information on the data collection, data producer, and related project. Repository information focused on data identifiers, while information about repository reputation and curation practices was rarely requested. Reuse information mostly involved advice on the reuse of data and terms of use.
Conclusion
These findings imply that data journals should provide a more standardized set of data paper components to inform reusers of relevant contextual information in a consistent manner. Information about repository reputation and curation could also be provided by data journals to complement the repository information provided by the authors of data papers and to help researchers evaluate the reusability of data.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

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
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
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
A Preliminary Analysis of Geography of Collaboration in Data Papers by S&T Capacity Index
Pei‐Ying Chen, Kai Li, Chenyue Jiao
Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology.2022; 59(1): 642. CrossRef
Taxonomy 2.0: computer-aided identification tools to assist Antarctic biologists in the field and in the laboratory
Thomas Saucède, Marc Eléaume, Quentin Jossart, Camille Moreau, Rachel Downey, Narissa Bax, Chester Sands, Borja Mercado, Cyril Gallut, Régine Vignes-Lebbe
Antarctic Science.2021; 33(1): 39. 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
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
A Survey of Exclusively Data Journals and How They Are Indexed by Scientific Databases
Kai Li, Chuyi Lu, Chenyue Jiao
Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology.2021; 58(1): 771. CrossRef
Three-stage publishing to support evidence-based management practice
Juan A. Marin-Garcia
WPOM-Working Papers on Operations Management.2021; 12(2): 56. CrossRef
The role of the data paper in scholarly communication
Chenyue Jiao, Peter T. Darch
Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology.2020;[Epub] CrossRef

Review

Overview of journal metrics: Kihong Kim, Yeonok Chung; Sci Ed. 2018;5(1):16-20. Published online February 19, 2018; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.112

15,157 View
435 Download
21 Web of Science
18 Crossref

Abstract PDF

Various kinds of metrics used for the quantitative evaluation of scholarly journals are reviewed. The impact factor and related metrics including the immediacy index and the aggregate impact factor, which are provided by the Journal Citation Reports, are explained in detail. The Eigenfactor score and the article influence score are also reviewed. In addition, journal metrics such as CiteScore, Source Normalized Impact per Paper, SCImago Journal Rank, h-index, and g-index are discussed. Limitations and problems that these metrics have are pointed out. We should be cautious to rely on those quantitative measures too much when we evaluate journals or researchers.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

The introspections of contemporary business research: a call for scientific creativity
Kuldeep Singh
Society and Business Review.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Towards a new paradigm for ‘journal quality’ criteria: a scoping review
Mina Moradzadeh, Shahram Sedghi, Sirous Panahi
Scientometrics.2023; 128(1): 279. CrossRef
Recommendations and guidelines for creating scholarly biomedical journals: A scoping review
Jeremy Y. Ng, Kelly D. Cobey, Saad Ahmed, Valerie Chow, Sharleen G. Maduranayagam, Lucas J. Santoro, Lindsey Sikora, Ana Marusic, Daniel Shanahan, Randy Townsend, Alan Ehrlich, Alfonso Iorio, David Moher, Shahabedin Rahmatizadeh
PLOS ONE.2023; 18(3): e0282168. CrossRef
A multidimensional journal evaluation framework based on the Pareto‐dominated set measured by the Manhattan distance
Xinxin Xu, Ziqiang Zeng, Yurui Chang
Learned Publishing.2023; 36(4): 619. CrossRef
Journal quality criteria: Measurement and significance
O. V. Kirillova, E. V. Tikhonova
Science Editor and Publisher.2022; 7(1): 12. CrossRef
Bibliometric analysis of artificial intelligence algorithms used for microbial fuel cell research
Luis Erick Coy-Aceves, Benito Corona-Vasquez
Water Practice and Technology.2022; 17(10): 2071. CrossRef
Predicting the citation count and CiteScore of journals one year in advance
William L. Croft, Jörg-Rüdiger Sack
Journal of Informetrics.2022; 16(4): 101349. 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
Kind Attention to the Altitude of Altmetrics
Shekar Shobana
Brazilian Dental Journal.2020; 31(5): 457. CrossRef
Comments on “Scientificity and H-Index.”
Ali Yavuz KARAHAN
Acta Medica Alanya.2020; 4(2): 203. CrossRef
Current concepts on bibliometrics: a brief review about impact factor, Eigenfactor score, CiteScore, SCImago Journal Rank, Source-Normalised Impact per Paper, H-index, and alternative metrics
Ernesto Roldan-Valadez, Shirley Yoselin Salazar-Ruiz, Rafael Ibarra-Contreras, Camilo Rios
Irish Journal of Medical Science (1971 -).2019; 188(3): 939. CrossRef
CiteScore metrics: Creating journal metrics from the Scopus citation index
Chris James, Lisa Colledge, Wim Meester, Norman Azoulay, Andrew Plume
Learned Publishing.2019; 32(4): 367. CrossRef
High Impact and Highly Cited Peer-Reviewed Journal Article Publications by Canadian Occupational Therapy Authors: A Bibliometric Analysis
Ted Brown, Yuh-Shan Ho, Sharon A. Gutman
Occupational Therapy In Health Care.2019; 33(4): 329. CrossRef
Corrective factors for author- and journal-based metrics impacted by citations to accommodate for retractions
Judit Dobránszki, Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva
Scientometrics.2019; 121(1): 387. CrossRef
A New Metric for the Analysis of the Scientific Article Citation Network
Livia Lin-Hsuan Chang, Frederick Kin Hing Phoa, Junji Nakano
IEEE Access.2019; 7: 132027. CrossRef
Bibliographic measures of top-tier finance and information systems journals
Thomas Krueger, Jack Shorter
Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education.2019; 12(5): 841. CrossRef
Journal metrics of Clinical and Molecular Hepatology based on the Web of Science Core Collection
Sun Huh
Clinical and Molecular Hepatology.2018; 24(2): 137. CrossRef
Journal Metrics of Infection & Chemotherapy and Current Scholarly Journal Publication Issues
Sun Huh
Infection & Chemotherapy.2018; 50(3): 219. CrossRef

Original Articles

Increasing number of authors per paper in Korean science and technology papers: Hyunju Jang, Kihong Kim, Sun Huh, Hyungsun Kim; Sci Ed. 2016;3(2):80-89. Published online August 20, 2016; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.70

12,486 View
200 Download
3 Web of Science
4 Crossref

Abstract PDF

We examined changes in the number of authors per paper for science and technology papers (agricultural sciences, engineering and technologies, medical sciences, and natural sciences) in Korea. We employed the Scopus database to examine the change in the number of authors in papers, which were published from 2000 to 2015 in the 234 Korean academic journals indexed on Scopus. We found that the global trend of growth in the number of authors per paper is evident in Korea as well. While there was little evidence of a correlation with the citation per paper, a positive correlation was found between with the field-weighted citation impact, another measure of a paper’s impact, in medical and natural science papers. In terms of the type of collaboration, we found that international collaboration papers had the highest number of authors, followed by national and institutional collaborations. The number of authors per paper was highest for those published in the top 10% journals by Source Normalized Impact per Paper, followed by Scopus-indexed journals, while papers published in Korea Citation Index had the lowest number of authors per paper. We propose that the rise in the number of authors per paper in Korean papers may be ascribed to many Korean research programs encouraging group research and the widespread availability of the internet, which has stimulated joint research efforts and encouraged international collaboration.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Analysis of Research Performance and Trends in Environmental Science
Won-Gi Shin, Moon-Ki Park, Da-Hyeon Kim, Hyun-Ju Jang, Tae-Sun Min
Journal of Environmental Science International.2020; 29(3): 283. CrossRef
Already, But Not Yet: Ending Unethical Practices in Authorship
Young-Chul Jung
Psychiatry Investigation.2018; 15(4): 335. CrossRef
Comparison between Korean and foreign authors concerning the citation impact of Korean journals indexed in Scopus
Hyunju Jang, Ki Woo Chun, Hyungsun Kim
Science Editing.2018; 6(1): 47. CrossRef
Rapid growth of international collaboration from articles indexed in Scopus database by researchers in Korea from 2006 to 2015
Yeonok Chung, Kihong Kim
Science Editing.2017; 4(1): 18. CrossRef

An ontology-based biomedical research paper authoring support tool: Senator Jeong, Sejin Nam, Hyun-Young Park; Sci Ed. 2014;1(1):37-42. Published online February 13, 2014; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.2014.1.37

21,282 View
127 Download
5 Web of Science
2 Crossref

Abstract PDF

This work aims to develop a paper authoring support system that helps biomedical scientists to organize their ideas for a specific discourse purpose. As an initial step toward the goal, this study developed an abstract authoring support tool that provides candidate lexical bundles organized according to the introduction, methods, results, and discussion (IMRAD) structure. Lexical bundles were extracted from the sentences in 152,083 structured abstracts of the PubMed Central open access subset and their distribution was analyzed by IMRAD section. To organize lexical bundles according to IMRAD, the Lexical Bundle Ontology was built. A Journal Article Tag Suite compliant authoring support tool was implemented. This tool lists candidate lexical bundles corresponding to authors’ discourse purposes in a specific section and thereby helps to complete sentences. We expect this tool be useful, at least in biomedical abstract writing, to organize an author’s ideas to achieve a specific discourse purpose. This tool is targeted primarily at biomedical scientists whose mother tongue is not English; however, English native speakers may find it useful as well.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Structuralizing biomedical abstracts with discriminative linguistic features
Sejin Nam, Senator Jeong, Sang-Kyun Kim, Hong-Gee Kim, Victoria Ngo, Nansu Zong
Computers in Biology and Medicine.2016; 79: 276. CrossRef
Editing and publishing scholarly journals in the internet age
Kihong Kim
Science Editing.2014; 1(1): 2. CrossRef

First
Prev
Page of 1
Next
Last

Search