Science Editing

Review

Influence of artificial intelligence and chatbots on research integrity and publication ethics: Payam Hosseinzadeh Kasani, Kee Hyun Cho, Jae-Won Jang, Cheol-Heui Yun; Sci Ed. 2024;11(1):12-25. Published online January 25, 2024; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.323

1,162 View
71 Download

Abstract PDF: Artificial intelligence (AI)-powered chatbots are rapidly supplanting human-derived scholarly work in the fast-paced digital age. This necessitates a re-evaluation of our traditional research and publication ethics, which is the focus of this article. We explore the ethical issues that arise when AI chatbots are employed in research and publication. We critically examine the attribution of academic work, strategies for preventing plagiarism, the trustworthiness of AI-generated content, and the integration of empathy into these systems. Current approaches to ethical education, in our opinion, fall short of appropriately addressing these problems. We propose comprehensive initiatives to tackle these emerging ethical concerns. This review also examines the limitations of current chatbot detectors, underscoring the necessity for more sophisticated technology to safeguard academic integrity. The incorporation of AI and chatbots into the research environment is set to transform the way we approach scholarly inquiries. However, our study emphasizes the importance of employing these tools ethically within research and academia. As we move forward, it is of the utmost importance to concentrate on creating robust, flexible strategies and establishing comprehensive regulations that effectively align these potential technological developments with stringent ethical standards. We believe that this is an essential measure to ensure that the advancement of AI chatbots significantly augments the value of scholarly research activities, including publications, rather than introducing potential ethical quandaries.

Original Article

Impact factor surge in Korean medical journals during the COVID-19 era: a bibliometric study: Chansu Park, Sejin Park, Hyeonseok Seo, Janghyeog Oh, Dongryeong Kim, Junha Kang, Hanul Kang, Hyunsung Kang, Yaechan Kim, Mi Ah Han; Sci Ed. 2024;11(1):55-61. Published online December 18, 2023; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.320

2,206 View
59 Download

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material: Purpose: The multiyear COVID-19 pandemic has affected the volume and speed of publications in scientific journals. This study evaluated trends in the impact measures of international medical journals published in Korea, including the journal impact factor (JIF).
Methods
We selected Science Citation Index Expanded journals with the country/region set to Korea and the academic category classified as “clinical medicine” in Journal Citation Reports. Trends in indicators such as the JIF and Journal Citation Indicator (JCI) were assessed for journals with JIF information from 2018 to 2022. Ratios and differences between the measures were calculated to determine the extent of the change.
Results
We identified 43 journals, and the average JIF of those journals increased from 2.33 in 2018 and 2.50 in 2019 to 3.45 in 2020 and 3.86 in 2021. Other measures, such as the 5-year JIF and JCI, steadily increased, and the proportion of gold open access journals also increased significantly. However, the JCI and Eigenfactor scores remained steady or showed relatively small increases. Furthermore, impact measures declined in 2022, including a JIF decrease to 3.55.
Conclusion
We presented trends in quantitative measurements for international medical journals in Korea, and found an overall increase. Journals need to maintain a rigorous publication process to improve the quality of their research and the research community needs to exercise caution when using quantitative measures to evaluate journals. Further research is required to examine the quantitative indicators of journals, including their publication policies, research topics, and long-term trends.

Training Material

What to tell and never tell a reviewer: Jean Iwaz; Sci Ed. 2023;10(2):181-185. Published online April 28, 2023; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.305

3,613 View
222 Download

Abstract PDF: The specialized literature abounds in recommendations about the most desirable technical ways of answering reviewers’ comments on a submitted manuscript. However, not all publications mention authors’ and/or reviewers’ feelings or reactions about what they may read or write in their respective reports, and even fewer publications tackle openly what may or may not be said in a set of answers to a reviewer’s comments. In answering reviewers’ comments, authors are often attentive to the technical or rational aspects of the task but might forget some of its relational aspects. In their answers, authors are expected to make every effort to abide by reviewers’ suggestions, including discussing major criticisms, editing the illustrations, or implementing minor corrections; abstain from questioning a reviewer’s competence or willingness to write a good review, including full and attentive reading and drafting useful comments; clearly separate their answers to each reviewer; avoid skipping, merging, or reordering reviewers’ comments; and, finally, specify the changes made. Authors are advised to call on facts, logic, and some diplomacy, but never on artifice, concealment, or flattery. Failing to do so erodes the trust between authors and reviewers, whereas integrity is expected and highly valued. The guiding principle should always be honesty.

Original Article

Current status and demand for educational activities on publication ethics by academic organizations in Korea: a descriptive study: Yera Hur, Cheol-Heui Yun; Sci Ed. 2023;10(1):64-70. Published online February 16, 2023; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.298

1,598 View
220 Download
2 Web of Science
1 Crossref

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material

Purpose: This study aimed to examine the following overarching issues: the current status of research and publication ethics training conducted in Korean academic organizations and what needs to be done to reinforce research and publication ethics training.
Methods
A survey with 12 items was examined in a pilot survey, followed by a main survey that was distributed to 2,487 academic organizations. A second survey, which contained six additional questions, was dispatched to the same subjects. The results of each survey were analyzed by descriptive statistical analysis, content analysis, and comparative analysis.
Results
More than half of the academic organizations provided research and publication ethics training programs, with humanities and social sciences organizations giving more training than the others (χ²=11.190, df=2, P=0.004). The results showed that research and publication ethics training was held mostly once and less than an hour per year, mainly in a lecture format. No significant difference was found in the training content among academic fields. The academic organizations preferred case-based discussion training methods and wanted expert instructors who could give tailored training with examples.
Conclusion
A systematic training program that can develop ethics instructors tailored to specific academic fields and financial support from academic organizations can help scholarly editors resolve the apparent gap between the real and the ideal in ethics training, and ultimately to achieve the competency needed to train their own experts.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Influence of artificial intelligence and chatbots on research integrity and publication ethics
Payam Hosseinzadeh Kasani, Kee Hyun Cho, Jae-Won Jang, Cheol-Heui Yun
Science Editing.2024; 11(1): 12. CrossRef

Training Material

How to share data through Harvard Dataverse, a repository site: a case of the World Journal of Men’s Health: Hyun Jun Park; Sci Ed. 2022;9(1):85-90. Published online February 20, 2022; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.270

3,238 View
253 Download
2 Web of Science
2 Crossref

Abstract PDF

Data are a highly valuable asset for researchers. Earlier, researchers who conducted a study permanently owned their data. Currently, however, these data can be used as a source for performing further research. In 2018, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors presented data sharing statements for clinical trials. Although this recommendation was limited to clinical trials published in medical journals, it is a meaningful change that formalized the concept of data sharing. However, the trend of data sharing is expected to spread beyond medical journals to include a wider range of scientific journals in the near future. Correspondingly, platforms that provide storage and services to share data will gradually diversify. The World Journal of Men’s Health has adopted a clinical data sharing policy. The data deposit process to Harvard Dataverse, a well-known data repository, is as follows: first, select the type of article for data sharing; second, create an account; third, write a letter to the corresponding author; fourth, receive and validate data from the authors; fifth, upload the data to Harvard Dataverse; and sixth, add a data sharing statement to the paper. It is recommended that scientific journal editors select an appropriate platform and participate in the new trend of data sharing.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

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 utilisation of open research data repositories for storing and sharing research data in higher learning institutions in Tanzania
Neema Florence Mosha, Patrick Ngulube
Library Management.2023; 44(8/9): 566. CrossRef

Original Article

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

4,917 View
338 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.

Training Material

Scientific journals should be transformed into science storytellers to improve their visibility: Kwangil Oh; Sci Ed. 2021;8(2):193-197. Published online August 20, 2021; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.255

6,915 View
158 Download

Abstract PDF: What is the objective for science journals to publish research papers? Would it be enough to collect research manuscripts and simply publish them in print or on the web? Science journal publishers have always strived to find ways of disseminating journal content to as many readers as possible. It is now time for science journal publishers to think about why a journal should be published; whether it is acceptable for valuable scientific findings to lie dormant in a journal’s archive; and whether traditional science communication is still effective. The present article suggests that science journals should transform themselves into science storytellers to improve the visibility and discoverability of their research findings. First, a new communication network between journals, authors, peers, the public, and policymakers is required. Second, conversion of media from academic language to plain language is critical to broadening the audience. Third, audio-visual content should be introduced into journal publishing to facilitate easy comprehension of the content. Fourth, research-focused channels, including EurekAlert, Medium, and social networking service channels are recommended as new media to propagate journals’ content to researchers. Improving visibility and discoverability is an urgent mission, especially for small society journals. To achieve this mission, science journals should be adapted to become storytellers and science communicators, as suggested above. A small society journal’s editor is not merely an editor, but an editor-publisher; therefore, editors should understand and take on this role.

Case Studys

PubMed Central as a platform for the survival of open-access biomedical society journals published in Korea: Sun Huh; Sci Ed. 2021;8(2):153-158. Published online August 20, 2021; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.247

4,307 View
151 Download
3 Web of Science
6 Crossref

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material

Twenty-one years have passed since PubMed Central (PMC) launched. The present case study describes Korean editors’ history of participation in PMC and their contributions to PMC. The three main turning points in the history of Korean editors’ involvement with PMC were as follows: first, the production of PMC XML files and deposition starting in 2008; second, thorough evaluations of applying journals since 2014; and third, the feasibility of non-English journals being indexed in PMC starting in 2019. The importance of PMC is further shown by the fact that KoreaMed Synapse, a full-text XML database of biomedical journals in Korea that was launched in 2007, was created by benchmarking PMC. Scholarly societies or institutes publish 724 (34.2%) of the 2,119 PMC journals without embargo in June 2021. Out of those 724 journals, 127 (17.5%) are published in Korea. PMC has helped local journals receive more citations from researchers worldwide, increasing their likelihood of being indexed in international databases. The number of submissions from international researchers has increased, thereby making it possible for journals to achieve international diversity. As the best full-text platform of biomedical journals, PMC has provided an excellent opportunity for biomedical journal editors in Korea to change their journals’ language to English and produce full-text JATS (Journal Article Tag Suite) XML files. These factors have made Korea the second-ranked country in terms of no-embargo PMC journals published by academic societies or institutes.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

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
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
Suggestions for Exercise Science’s Promotion to a Top-Tier Journal in the Category of Sports Science
Sun Huh
Exercise Science.2022; 31(3): 279. CrossRef
Marking the inclusion of the Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing in PubMed Central and strategies to be promoted to a top-tier journal in the nursing category
Sun Huh
Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing.2022; 28(3): 165. CrossRef
The Journal of Minimally Invasive Surgery is indexed by PubMed Central in 2022
Sun Jin Park
Journal of Minimally Invasive Surgery.2022; 25(3): 85. 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

4,112 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

Korean court cases regarding research and publication ethics from 2009 to 2020: Ju Yoen Lee; Sci Ed. 2021;8(1):98-103. Published online February 20, 2021; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.236

4,596 View
137 Download
1 Crossref

Abstract PDF

Research and publication misconduct may occur in various forms, including author misrepresentation, plagiarism, and data fabrication. Research and publication ethics are essentially not legal duties, but ethical obligations. In reality, however, legal disputes arise over whether research and publication ethics have been violated. Thus, in many cases, misconduct in research and publication is determined in the courts. This article presents noteworthy legal cases in Korea regarding research and publication ethics to help editors and authors prevent ethical misconduct. Legal cases from 2009 to 2020 were collected from the database of the Supreme Court of Korea in December 2020. These court cases represent three case types: 1) civil cases, such as affirmation of nullity of dismissal and damages; 2) criminal cases, such as fraud, interference with business, and violations of copyright law; and 3) administrative cases related to disciplinary measures against professors affiliated with a university. These cases show that although research and publication ethics are ethical norms that are autonomously established by the relevant academic societies, they become a criterion for case resolution in legal disputes where research and publication misconduct is at issue.

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 Articles

Five clusters of flood management articles in Scopus from 2000 to 2019 using social network analysis: Rosy Riani Kusuma, Ida Widianingsih, Sinta Ningrum, Rita Myrna; Sci Ed. 2021;8(1):85-92. Published online February 20, 2021; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.234

5,722 View
279 Download
1 Crossref

Abstract PDF

Purpose: This study aimed to analyze the bibliographic characteristics and content of articles on flood management published in journals indexed by Scopus written by researchers from throughout the world from 2000 to 2019.
Methods
We obtained data from the Scopus database on October 2, 2020. “Flood management” was used to search across several categories, including article title, abstract, and keywords, filtered by subject area (social science; environmental science; and business, management, and accounting). We only retrieved articles written in English. We conducted content analysis using the VOSviewer software and visualized the co-occurrence of keywords and bibliographic coupling of sources and countries.
Results
Following the study protocol, we found 984 articles on flood management over the past 20 years. Among the three subject areas, environmental science was the most productive field for publishing flood management articles. Flood control, flood management, and risk assessment were the top three most popular topics. Flood management publications were published in 266 journals. In total, 86 countries collaborated to produce research related to flood management. Natural Hazard Journal and Journal of Flood Risk Management were the most prominent journals. Institutions from Europe ominated the top 10 institutions with the most publications by affiliated researchers.
Conclusion
From a global perspective, flood management research in the past two decades has increased significantly. There were five major topic clusters, and European-published journals ominated publications. Thus, Asian institutions need to conduct more active research on this topic.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Yabancı diller bölümlerinde görev yapan öğretim üyelerinin Scopus veri tabanındaki yayın performanslarının değerlendirilmesi
Özge Nazlı DALGIÇ, Merve GELDİ, Erdoğan KARTAL
RumeliDE Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi.2022; (30): 991. CrossRef

A bibliometric and co-occurrence analysis of COVID-19–related literature published between December 2019 and June 2020: Md. Sayeed Al-Zaman; Sci Ed. 2021;8(1):57-63. Published online February 20, 2021; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.230

5,958 View
175 Download
11 Web of Science
12 Crossref

Abstract PDF

Purpose: The main purposes of this study were to analyze the document types and languages of published papers on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), along with the top authors, publications, countries, institutions, and disciplines, and to analyze the co-occurrence of keywords and bibliographic coupling of countries and sources of the most-cited COVID-19 literature.
Methods
This study analyzed 16,384 COVID-19 studies published between December 2019 and June 2020. The data were extracted from the Web of Science database using four keywords: “COVID-19,” “coronavirus,” “2019-nCoV,” and “SARS-CoV-2.” The top 500 mostcited documents were analyzed for bibliographic and citation network visualization.
Results
The studies were published in 19 different languages, and English (95.313%) was the most common. Of 157 research-producing countries, the United States (25.433%) was in the leading position. Wang Y (n=94) was the top author, and the BMJ (n=488) was the top source. The University of London (n=488) was the leading organization, and medicine-related papers (n=2,259) accounted for the highest proportion. The co-occurrence of keywords analysis identified “coronavirus,” “COVID-19,” “SARS-CoV-2,” “2019-nCoV,” and “pneumonia” as the most frequent words. The bibliographic coupling analysis of countries and sources showed the strongest collaborative links between China and the United States and between the New England Journal of Medicine and the JAMA.
Conclusion
Collaboration between the United States and China was key in COVID-19 research during this period. Although BMJ was the leading title for COVID-19 articles, the co-author link between New England Journal of Medicine and JAMA was the strongest.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Sustainable business model innovation literature: a bibliometrics analysis
Ling Pan, Zeshui Xu, Marinko Skare
Review of Managerial Science.2023; 17(3): 757. CrossRef
A Bibliometric and Co-Occurrence Analysis of Work-Life Balance
Soumi Majumder, Debasish Biswas
International Journal of Information Systems and Supply Chain Management.2023; 16(1): 1. CrossRef
A koronavírus-járvány a közgazdasági szakirodalomban. Egy új határterület tudománymetriai elemzése
Ádám Török, Andrea Magda Nagy, Boglárka Konka
Közgazdasági Szemle.2023; 70(3): 284. CrossRef
Bibliometric and Subject Analysis of 100 Most-Cited Articles in the Field of Art Therapy
Hoda Homavandi, Masoud Motalebi Kashani, Zahra Batooli
Journal of Creativity in Mental Health.2023; : 1. CrossRef
Fault diagnosis of photovoltaic systems using artificial intelligence: A bibliometric approach
Edgar Hernando Sepúlveda-Oviedo, Louise Travé-Massuyès, Audine Subias, Marko Pavlov, Corinne Alonso
Heliyon.2023; 9(11): e21491. CrossRef
Current trends in sustainable organization management: A bibliometric analysis
Hellen Ogutu, Youssef El Archi, Lóránt Dénes Dávid
Oeconomia Copernicana.2023; 14(1): 11. CrossRef
Gamification in education: A scientometric, content and co-occurrence analysis of systematic review and meta-analysis articles
Somayyeh Nadi-Ravandi, Zahra Batooli
Education and Information Technologies.2022; 27(7): 10207. CrossRef
Between panic and motivation: did the first wave of COVID-19 affect scientific publishing in Mediterranean countries?
Mona Farouk Ali
Scientometrics.2022; 127(6): 3083. CrossRef
Eye-Related COVID-19: A Bibliometric Analysis of the Scientific Production Indexed in Scopus
Verónica García-Pascual, Elvira García-Beltrán, Begoña Domenech-Amigot
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.2022; 19(16): 9927. CrossRef
Bibliometric Analysis of the Scientific Research on Sustainability in the Impact of Social Media on Higher Education during the COVID-19 Pandemic
Saddam Hossain, M. Sadik Batcha, Ibrahim Atoum, Naved Ahmad, Afnan Al-Shehri
Sustainability.2022; 14(24): 16388. CrossRef
Modeling the Epidemic Growth of Preprints on COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2
Giovani L. Vasconcelos, Luan P. Cordeiro, Gerson C. Duarte-Filho, Arthur A. Brum
Frontiers in Physics.2021;[Epub] CrossRef
COVID-19 Konulu Medya ve İletişim Çalışmalarının Bibliyometrik Profili
Hikmet TOSYALI
Selçuk İletişim.2021; 14(4): 1578. CrossRef

Comparison of length limits and the actual length of abstracts in pharmacology, oncology, and neurology journals listed in PubMed: Eungi Kim, Yong-Gu Lee; Sci Ed. 2021;8(1):39-46. Published online February 20, 2021; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.228

3,699 View
82 Download
1 Web of Science
1 Crossref

Abstract PDF

Purpose: This study aimed to compare the length limits specified in the author guidelines with the actual length of abstracts in 90 journals in the fields of pharmacology, oncology, and neurology. Specifically, the following parameters were examined: abstract formats among the three subject areas; the relationship between the length limit and the actual length of abstracts; and actual abstract length according to the number of subheadings, the length of structured abstract subheadings, the length of frequently used subheading sets, and clinical trial registration information.
Methods
Thirty journals from each of three medical fields (pharmacology, oncology, and neurology) were selected from Elsevier’s Scimago Journal Rank. This included the journals indexed in PubMed from 2018 to 2019 that published the most articles. Article abstracts from these journals were used to create a dataset for this study. Descriptive, comparative, and correlational analyses of data for the three fields were conducted.
Results
The number of subheadings and abstract length increased in parallel. The Results component was the longest, suggesting that authors tended to use longer text to report results than for other structural abstract components. Authors generally utilized the length limit to a full extent without exceeding it.
Conclusion
The traditionally used 250-word length limit should be reconsidered for pharmacology, oncology, and neurology journals because it disregards the distinctive characteristics of abstracts and length differences between structured and unstructured abstracts. Various characteristics of abstract lengths presented in this study should be considered to establish more justifiable policies.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

The use of subject headings varied in Embase and MEDLINE: An analysis of indexing across six subject areas
Tove Faber Frandsen, Anne-Marie Fiala Carlsen, Mette Brandt Eriksen
Journal of Information Science.2022; : 016555152211073. CrossRef

Relationship between publication indicators and citation impact indicators for publications in business, management, and accounting listed in Scopus from 2015 to 2019: Hyunju Jang; Sci Ed. 2021;8(1):18-25. Published online February 20, 2021; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.225

4,693 View
130 Download
1 Web of Science
1 Crossref

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material

Purpose: This study examined whether article-level publication indicators were related to citation impact indicators in the business, management, and accounting categories listed in Scopus. Article-level publication indicators included the number of authors, countries, and keywords, as well as title length, while citation impact indicators included the field-weighted citation impact (FWCI) at the article level and Scimago Journal Rank (SJR) at the journal level. The optimal values of four article-level publication indicators for maximizing the FWCI and SJR were calculated.
Methods
All publication and citation impact indicators were gathered for articles and reviews in the business, management, and accounting fields published from 2015 and 2019 and listed in Scopus and SciVal. Correlations between four article-level citation indicators and each citation impact indicator were analyzed.
Results
The number of authors was positively associated with the FWCI, while the number of countries and keywords was not associated with the FWCI or SJR. Title length was negatively associated with the FWCI and SJR. The optimal publication indicators to maximize the FWCI were four authors, three more countries, six keywords, and a title word count of 14 to 19. The optimal publication indicators to maximize the SJR were three to four coauthors, three to four countries of collaborators, five keywords, and a title word count of two to seven.
Conclusion
Authors aiming to get higher citations and publish in higher-ranking SJR journals in the business, management, and accounting categories are recommended to pay close attention to design of research team and the number of keywords and impactful title length so that the publication will have a higher likelihood of being accepted and receiving citations.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

The impact of qualitative methods on article citation: an international business research perspective
José Satsumi López-Morales, Héctor Francisco Salazar-Núñez, Claudia Guadalupe Zarrabal-Gutiérrez
Scientometrics.2022; 127(6): 3225. CrossRef

Case Study

Analysis of consultations by the Committee for Publication Ethics of the Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors: You Sun Kim, Dong Soo Han; Sci Ed. 2020;7(2):184-188. Published online August 20, 2020; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.215

4,947 View
113 Download
4 Web of Science
3 Crossref

Abstract PDF

This study aimed to analyze the inquiries on research and publication ethics submitted to the Committee for Publication Ethics of the Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors. A total of 80 inquiries were initiated over the course of 3 years, from April 2017 to March 2020. Based on a categorization of these inquiries, four common topics are discussed in detail. We present specific cases derived from actual situations, and the steps taken in processing these inquiries. The number of inquiries by topic was as follows: duplicate publications (12), secondary publications (11), authorship disputes (11), informed consent (6), proceedings (5), copyright (5), institutional review board approval (5), plagiarism (4), corrections (4), and others (17). Cases of duplicate publication and authorship disputes can be treated according to the flow chart of the Committee on Publication Ethics of the United Kingdom. Secondary publications may be permitted if the readers or audiences are different and both journals’ editors grant permission. Editors should be cautious about publishing cases without informed consent, even in the absence of identifiable photos, because patients or their families may be able to identify the cases. An adequate awareness of ethical considerations relevant to publication can help reduce the number of instances of research and publication ethics misconduct.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Ethics Committees: Structure, Roles, and Issues
Pankti Mehta, Olena Zimba, Armen Yuri Gasparyan, Birzhan Seiil, Marlen Yessirkepov
Journal of Korean Medical Science.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Analysis of duplicated publications in Russian journals
Yury V. Chekhovich, Andrey V. Khazov
Journal of Informetrics.2022; 16(1): 101246. 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
Science Editing.2021; 8(1): 112. CrossRef

First
Prev
Page of 3
Next
Last

Search