Science Editing

Original Articles

Standards, ethics, and digital systems in Indonesian scientific journal governance: a thematic analysis of policy documents: Irwansyah; Sci Ed. 2026;13(1):36-45. Published online February 2, 2026; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.394

834 View
54 Download

Abstract PDF: Purpose
This study aimed to analyze how government policies shape the governance of scientific journals in Indonesia through regulatory frameworks, quality assurance instruments, publication ethics, and digital systems that structure national journal management.
Methods
A thematic analysis was employed to examine policy documents, including laws and regulations, administrative policies, ethical codes, and operational guidelines governing scientific journals. Documents were systematically analyzed using a coding process to identify regulatory objectives, governance mechanisms, quality assurance instruments, publication ethics arrangements, and modes of policy implementation through digital systems.
Results
Scientific journals in Indonesia have been institutionalized as instruments of public governance rather than solely as platforms for academic communication. Journal governance is characterized by standardized accreditation, performance-based evaluation, integrated quality assurance, and administratively enforced publication ethics. Digital systems play a central role in translating regulatory standards into routine, data-driven practices, thereby enabling continuous monitoring, verification, and auditability.
Conclusion
Government policies have strengthened accountability, transparency, and systemic integration in Indonesian scientific publishing. At the same time, the consolidation of standards-based governance and digital oversight presents challenges in maintaining an appropriate balance between administrative compliance and the substantive epistemic quality of scientific publications.

Prevalence of generative artificial intelligence guidance statements in the urology literature: a descriptive study: Mandy Hsu, Max S. Yudovich, Jay D. Raman; Sci Ed. 2025;12(2):138-142. Published online August 5, 2025; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.375

1,612 View
46 Download

Abstract PDF: Purpose
The adoption of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in medical literature has increased exponentially over the past 2 years. Many journals have introduced AI guidance statements for authors during the manuscript submission process. This study characterizes the extent and types of AI guidance statements among urology journals.
Methods
A total of 112 urology journals indexed on PubMed were identified. Each journal’s website was searched for the presence of an AI guidance statement. Specific aspects of AI guidance assessed included manuscript content generation, manuscript writing, and manuscript editing. Additional variables such as journal data, region, subspecialty, society affiliations, and impact factor were also collected.
Results
Of the total 112 urology journals, 61 (54.5%) had an AI guidance statement. Most journals with statements (n=58, 95.1%) permitted the use of AI for manuscript editing. A slightly smaller majority (n=53, 86.9%) explicitly allowed AI-assisted manuscript writing. No journals definitively prohibited AI use for manuscript editing. Twenty-three journals (37.7%) permitted AI-generated manuscript content, while 11 (18.0%) explicitly did not, and 27 (44.3%) were unclear regarding their stance. Among journals with any AI usage, 60 (98.4%) required a disclosure statement on AI use. Only one journal (1.6%) did not provide any guidance.
Conclusion
More than half of urology journals offer author guidance on the use of AI in manuscript submission. However, these instructions are not standardized across journals. As AI continues to permeate medical literature, the development of consensus policies is advisable.

Article processing charge costs of open access articles indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection from 2019 to 2023 by publisher and country: a secondary publication: Youngim Jung, June Young Lee, Jungwoo Lee, Byoung-Goon An, Wan Jong Kim, Jinseo Park; Sci Ed. 2025;12(2):114-123. Published online July 30, 2025; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.370

2,308 View
113 Download
1 Crossref

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material

Purpose
The open access (OA) movement has significantly improved access to academic content. However, the financial burden of article processing charges (APCs) and the lack of pricing transparency remain major concerns. This study aims to estimate APC costs by publisher and country, focusing on Korea, to inform policy decisions.
Methods
We combined datasets from ScholCommLab (2019–2023), KESLI (2018–2024), and Web of Science (WoS). These sources were merged by aligning APC data with WoS-indexed articles, adjusting for missing values and currency differences. The final dataset included over 4.4 million records, enabling detailed analysis of APC expenditures by publisher and country.
Results
From 2019 to 2023, global APC spending increased, with clear regional disparities. Italy showed the highest compound annual growth rate in APC costs at 34.17%, followed by moderate to high growth in Korea, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Korea and Italy allocated large proportions of APC spending to MDPI—38.71% and 37.53%, respectively—raising concerns about publisher dominance and potential quality issues. In contrast, Germany and the United Kingdom established national agreements aimed at controlling APC costs.
Conclusion
This study underscores the growing global burden of APCs and the need for cost-management strategies. Policymakers should consider targeted financial support and promote equitable publishing models. Adoption of the diamond OA model—which removes APCs for authors and provides free access to readers—offers a sustainable and inclusive path forward for academic publishing, addressing both financial and ethical challenges in the current OA landscape.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

A Study on Research Output Collection Strategies of Medical Library in Response to the Expansion of Open Access Publishing
Jeho Yi
Journal of Korean Medical Library Association.2025; 52(1): 48. CrossRef

Ethical guidelines for the use of generative artificial intelligence and artificial intelligence-assisted tools in scholarly publishing: a thematic analysis: Adéle da Veiga; Sci Ed. 2025;12(1):28-34. Published online February 5, 2025; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.352

16,682 View
1,207 Download
7 Web of Science
10 Crossref

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material

Purpose
This analysis aims to propose guidelines for artificial intelligence (AI) research ethics in scientific publications, intending to inform publishers and academic institutional policies in order to guide them toward a coherent and consistent approach to AI research ethics.
Methods
A literature-based thematic analysis was conducted. The study reviewed the publication policies of the top 10 journal publishers addressing the use of AI in scholarly publications as of October 2024. Thematic analysis using Atlas.ti identified themes and subthemes across the documents, which were consolidated into proposed research ethics guidelines for using generative AI and AI-assisted tools in scholarly publications.
Results
The analysis revealed inconsistencies among publishers’ policies on AI use in research and publications. AI-assisted tools for grammar and formatting are generally accepted, but positions vary regarding generative AI tools used in pre-writing and research methods. Key themes identified include author accountability, human oversight, recognized and unrecognized uses of AI tools, and the necessity for transparency in disclosing AI usage. All publishers agree that AI tools cannot be listed as authors. Concerns involve biases, quality and reliability issues, compliance with intellectual property rights, and limitations of AI detection tools.
Conclusion
The article highlights the significant knowledge gap and inconsistencies in guidelines for AI use in scientific research. There is an urgent need for unified ethical standards, and guidelines are proposed for distinguishing between the accepted use of AI-assisted tools and the cautious use of generative AI tools.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

“An Assistant in Your Pocket”: How Generative AI Shapes the Publishing Practices of Russian Postgraduate Students
E. A. Koval, S. G. Ushkin, O. N. Ageeva, N. V. Zhadunova
Vysshee Obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia.2026; 34(12): 107. CrossRef
Uso ético y eficiente de la inteligencia artificial en trabajos académicos: Veritas e interacción crítica escalonada
Lluís Codina
BiD: textos universitaris de biblioteconomia i documentació.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
On Artificial Intelligence and the Transformation of Scientific Publishing
Ingri G. Camacho-Triana, Julian Arcila-Forero, José D. Gutierrez-Mendoza, Ian F. Guarnizo-Martinez, Lenin A. Bulla-Cruz, Sonia C. Mangones M.
Ingeniería e Investigación.2026; 45(3): e125615. CrossRef
Challenges and Risks of AI in Academic Writing Based on Student Perspectives
Louie Giray, Bench Fabros, Gerry Digo
Journal of Academic Ethics.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Policies and Guidelines for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Latin American Journals Indexed in Scopus and Classified According to the Scimago Journal Rank (SJR)
Cristian Zahn-Muñoz, Patricio Viancos-González, Nancy Alarcón-Henríquez, Bastián Aravena-Niño, Ezequiel Martínez-Rojas
Publications.2026; 14(1): 17. CrossRef
AI humanizers and the crisis of information integrity: implications for scientific writing
Louie Giray
Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Archives of Pharmacology.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
A systematic critical review of generative AI's impact on authorship, pedagogy, and integrity (2023–2025)
Zouhaier Slimi
Frontiers in Education.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Generative artificial intelligence and the transformation of the scientific research process through a critical review of the research cycle
William Marin-Rodriguez, Flor Garivay-Torres, Edgar Susanibar-Ramírez, Elia Andrade-Giron
Iberoamerican Journal of Science Measurement and Communication.2026; 6: 1. CrossRef
Biomedical research publication in the age of artificial intelligence: Current prospects for balancing integrity and innovation
Vivek Kumar Bains, Ujjal K Bhawal
Journal of Healthcare Research and Education.2025; 1: 3. CrossRef
The 2025 Landscape of Generative AI in Scholarly Writing and Publishing: A Scoping Review of Uses and Ethical Approaches
Lilia Raitskaya, Elena Tikhonova
Journal of Language and Education.2025; 11(4): 5. CrossRef

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

4,887 View
147 Download
2 Web of Science
2 Crossref

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.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Standards, ethics, and digital systems in Indonesian scientific journal governance: a thematic analysis of policy documents
Irwansyah
Science Editing.2026; 13(1): 36. CrossRef
The promotion of university journals published by Universitas Diponegoro, Indonesia, from 2018 to 2024: a descriptive study
Eko Didik Widianto, Hadiyanto, Teddy Mantoro, Raka Sindu Wardoyo
Science Editing.2025; 12(1): 43. CrossRef

Original Articles

Copyright policies of science and engineering open access journals indexed in Science Citation Index Expanded or Scopus, published by Korean academic societies: Dae Un Hong, Ju Yoen Lee; Sci Ed. 2024;11(1):62-72. Published online February 20, 2024; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.330; Correction in: Sci Ed 2025;12(1):89

7,445 View
171 Download
1 Web of Science
1 Crossref

Abstract PDF

Purpose
This article explores the challenges related to copyright policies in the context of science and engineering open access (OA) journals based in Korea.
Methods
From Korea Citation Index (KCI)-listed science and engineering journals in English indexed in Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) or Scopus, 162 journals were identified as of January 10, 2024. Of these, 104 were published independently by Korean academic societies. All were open access. Data were collected from the KCI database and verified via each journal’s website. Discrepancies were resolved using the journal website information.
Results
The English-language science and engineering OA journals published independently by Korean academic societies typically exhibit three common characteristics regarding their copyright and licensing policies. First, authors are generally required to transfer their copyrights. Second, the Creative Commons (CC) license terms are predominantly BY-NC (Attribution-NonCommercial), without providing authors the option to select alternative licensing terms. Third, the journals do not sufficiently protect the rights of the authors. From the analyses presented herein, it is evident that the current copyright and licensing policies of Korea’s English-language science and engineering OA journals lack a robust structure.
Conclusion
These policies need to be revised to allow authors to retain copyright and require them to consent for the CC license terms it adopts, in order to align with the common practice among OA journals. Furthermore, to better protect authors’ rights, it would be beneficial to permit authors to choose the specific terms of the CC license for their articles.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Correction to “Copyright policies of science and engineering open access journals indexed in Science Citation Index Expanded or Scopus, published by Korean academic societies”

Science Editing.2025; 12(1): 89. 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

5,191 View
256 Download
1 Web of Science

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.

Preprint acceptance policies of Asian academic society journals in 2020: Ye Jin Choi, Hyung Wook Choi, Soon Kim; Sci Ed. 2021;8(1):10-17. Published online February 20, 2021; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.224

9,338 View
162 Download
7 Web of Science
9 Crossref

Abstract PDF

Purpose
In the current era of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, the trend of sharing new research results through preprint platforms is receiving more attention from researchers than ever before. Preprints have been recognized as a primary and essential method to disseminate new findings faster than traditional publications. Therefore, it has become necessary for journals and editors to acknowledge these changes, prepare preprint policies, and notify authors accordingly. This study aimed to review the status of preprint policies of international publishers and Asian academic society journals.
Methods
In total, 383 Asian academic society journals registered in Science Citation Index Expanded were selected as a dataset for analysis between December 11, 2020 and January 8, 2021. Three different parameters were investigated whether each journal had a preprint policy, whether journals allowed preprint manuscripts to be submitted, and whether preprint articles were allowed to be included in the references.
Results
Among the 383 Asian academic society journals from 22 countries, only 28 journals accepted preprint manuscripts, and eight allowed the use of preprint manuscripts as references. Japan had the most journals that both had preprint policies and accepted preprint manuscripts, with 13 journals, followed by Korea with 10 journals.
Conclusion
Despite the limitations of this study, the results show that editors and journal staff should understand the current preprint trend and try to prepare preprint policies that best meet the journals’ and authors’ interests.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Preprint policies in Spanish academic journals: analysis of the clarity of instructions to authors
Cristobal Urbano, Cecilia Rozemblum, Guillermo Banzato
Journal of Documentation.2026; 82(3): 547. CrossRef
Awareness, Experiences, and Attitudes Toward Preprints Among Medical Academics: Convergent Mixed Methods Study
Mustafa Sevim, Burak Karamese, Zafer Alparslan
JMIRx Med.2026; 7: e78139. CrossRef
Journal metrics, document network, and conceptual and social structures of the Korean Journal of Anesthesiology from 2017 to July 2022: a bibliometric study
Sun Huh
Korean Journal of Anesthesiology.2023; 76(1): 3. CrossRef
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
The evolution, benefits, and challenges of preprints and their interaction with journals
Pippa Smart
Science Editing.2022; 9(1): 79. 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
Korean editors’ and researchers’ experiences with preprints and attitudes towards preprint policies
Hyun Jung Yi, Sun Huh
Science Editing.2021; 8(1): 4. 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

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

9,732 View
213 Download
10 Web of Science
12 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

Researchers' Views on Preprints and Open Access Publishing: Results From a Free‐Answer Survey of Japanese Molecular Biologists
Harufumi Tamazawa, Kazuki Ide, Kazuhisa Kamegai
Learned Publishing.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Preprint policies in Spanish academic journals: analysis of the clarity of instructions to authors
Cristobal Urbano, Cecilia Rozemblum, Guillermo Banzato
Journal of Documentation.2026; 82(3): 547. CrossRef
Preprint servers and journals: rivals or allies?
Natascha Chtena, Juan Pablo Alperin, Stephen Pinfield, Alice Fleerackers, Irene V. Pasquetto
Journal of Documentation.2025; 81(4): 847. CrossRef
A dataset of the awareness, usage, and appeals of Chinese humanities and social science scholars and journal editors regarding preprint platforms
Yinglun YANG, Chunlan XIONG, Jing SHI, Jing MA, Ni ZHANG, Hanwen ZHANG, Ming XU, Chenglong ZHANG, Xiaoting CHEN, Sijia LU
China Scientific Data.2025; 10(3): 1. CrossRef
Monitoring of open science perception by Russian researchers
Lyudmila B. Shevchenko
Scientific and Technical Libraries.2025; (9): 102. CrossRef
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

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; Sci Ed. 2020;7(2):136-141. Published online August 20, 2020; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.208

10,116 View
115 Download
10 Web of Science
9 Crossref

Abstract PDF

Purpose
The present study analyzed the current status of the data sharing policies of journals published in Brazil, France, and Korea that were listed in the 2018 Scimago Journal and Country Ranking and Web of Science Core Collection.
Methods
Web of Science journals were selected from the 2018 Scimago Journal and Country Ranking. The homepages of all target journals were searched for the presence of statements on data sharing policies, including clinical trial data sharing policies, the level of the policies, and actual statements of data availability in articles.
Results
Out of 565 journals from these three countries, 118 (20.9%) had an optional data sharing policy, and one had a mandatory data sharing policy. Harvard Dataverse was the repository of one journal. The number of journals that had adopted a data sharing policy was 11 (6.7%) for Brazil, 64 (27.6%) for France, and 44 (25.9%) for Korea. One journal from Brazil and 20 journals from Korea had adopted clinical trial data sharing policies in accordance with the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Statements of data sharing were found in articles from two journals.
Conclusion
Journals from France and Korea adopted data sharing policies more actively than those from Brazil. However, the actual implementation of these policies through descriptions of data availability in articles remains rare. In many journals that appear to have data sharing policies, those policies may just reflect a standard description by the publisher, especially in France. Actual data sharing was not found to be frequent.

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.2025; 59(2): 995. CrossRef
Open science indicator compliance by Spanish scientific journals
María Ángeles Coslado, Daniela De Filippo, Elías Sanz-Casado
Journal of Data and Information Science.2025; 10(4): 219. 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
Journal metrics, document network, and conceptual and social structures of the Korean Journal of Anesthesiology from 2017 to July 2022: a bibliometric study
Sun Huh
Korean Journal of Anesthesiology.2023; 76(1): 3. 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
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
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
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 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

Case Studys

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

8,075 View
157 Download
1 Web of Science
1 Crossref

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.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Editorial Predictors of the Discontinuation of Open Access Scientific Journals in Scopus: An Analysis from DOAJ
Jean Paul Simon Castillo-Nuñez, Carlos Alberto Minchon-Medina, Angie Clemente-Vega, Nohelia Rosa Vallenas-Aroni, Marile Lozano-Lozano, Myriam Báez-Sepúlveda
Publications.2026; 14(1): 2. CrossRef

Arbitral action and preventive methods against predatory journal practice: Sung Pil Park, Eric Yong Joong Lee, Ji Hee Suh; Sci Ed. 2018;5(1):49-52. Published online February 19, 2018; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.118

15,974 View
236 Download
1 Web of Science
1 Crossref

Abstract PDF

As open access model of journal publication increases, predatory journals, which deceive scholars to publish journals in fake database websites and exploit them for publishing fee, is also increasing. There are two types of predatory journals. First, journal hijacking and cybersquatting generally create fake database website by mimicking authentic database website, thereby defrauding scholars for publication fee. Second, journal phishing use scam emails to steal scholars’ personal information. If scholars suffered damage from predatory journals, scholars can take either arbitral or judicial actions. Arbitral action follows arbitrational resolution process termed Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy. Scholars can join Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy proceeding with legal entity that has right to authentic database website, which will result in cancellation or transfer of fake database website. In contrast, scholars can take judicial action under Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, which may help scholars to recover an actual monetary damage from predatory journals. Nonetheless, taking precaution to avoid predatory journals is the best course of action, rather than going through arduous cure procedures. Scholars may prevent predatory journals by carefully examining fake database website names or email addresses, or observing unreasonable number of published article issues in predatory journal websites.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

How to respond to and what to do for papers published in predatory journals?
Aamir Raoof Memon
Science Editing.2018; 5(2): 146. CrossRef

Taiwan Government’s scientific journal supporting policy: Hsiu-Ching Hsu, Wei-Hsing Tuan; Sci Ed. 2016;3(2):105-108. Published online August 20, 2016; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.74

13,152 View
164 Download
2 Web of Science
2 Crossref

Abstract PDF

This report discloses the journal supporting policy in Taiwan. At the moment, the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) not only gives financial support to each academic research projects but also plays an important role to the quality of many scientific journals. The MOST has established a competitive evaluation system to assess the quality of scientific journals. According to the policy of MOST, each academic association could apply financial support for one scientific journal. Around 60 journals receive support from MOST every year.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Exploring state and institutional support for sustainable scholarly journal publishing
Maryna Zhenchenko, Olha Dunaievska
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL STUDIES.2025; 18(3): 144. CrossRef
Knowledge production and internationalisation of research in Taiwan: a new watershed?
Sheng-Ju Chan, Chia-Yu Yang, Hung-Chun Tai
Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management.2020; 42(2): 245. CrossRef

First
Prev
Page of 1
Next
Last

Search