{"title":"Scopus, cOAlition S, and Crossref’s views on scholarly publishing in the next 10 years","authors":"T. Seo","doi":"10.6087/kcse.267","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.267","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43802,"journal":{"name":"Science Editing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47709464","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Prakoso Bhairawa Putera, S. Suryanto, S. Ningrum, I. Widianingsih, Y. Rianto
{"title":"Increased number of Scopus articles from Indonesia from 1945 to 2020, an analysis of international collaboration, and a comparison with other ASEAN countries from 2016 to 2020","authors":"Prakoso Bhairawa Putera, S. Suryanto, S. Ningrum, I. Widianingsih, Y. Rianto","doi":"10.6087/kcse.265","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.265","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43802,"journal":{"name":"Science Editing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48137749","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Diplomacy in six patterns of reviewers’ queries during manuscript revision in scholarly publishing","authors":"J. Iwaz","doi":"10.6087/kcse.264","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.264","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43802,"journal":{"name":"Science Editing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48537362","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Gadde Praveen, Harsha Gvd, Swati G Naidu, Dharani Asd
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.
{"title":"The opinions of Indian dental faculty members on harmonizing manuscript preparation and the submission guidelines of journals","authors":"Gadde Praveen, Harsha Gvd, Swati G Naidu, Dharani Asd","doi":"10.6087/kcse.258","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.258","url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":43802,"journal":{"name":"Science Editing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48000758","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
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.
PubMed Central（PMC）成立至今已有21年。本案例研究描述了韩国编辑参与PMC的历史及其对PMC的贡献。韩国编辑参与PMC历史上的三个主要转折点是：第一，从2008年开始制作PMC XML文件并进行沉积；二是对2014年以来应用期刊的全面评价；第三，非英文期刊从2019年开始在PMC中编入索引的可行性。2007年推出的韩国生物医学期刊全文XML数据库KoreaMed Synapse是由PMC基准创建的，这一事实进一步表明了PMC的重要性。2021年6月，学术协会或研究所出版了2119种未经禁运的PMC期刊中的724种（34.2%）。在这724种期刊中，127种（17.5%）在韩国出版。PMC帮助当地期刊获得了来自世界各地研究人员的更多引用，增加了它们在国际数据库中被索引的可能性。国际研究人员提交的论文数量有所增加，从而使期刊有可能实现国际多样性。作为最好的生物医学期刊全文平台，PMC为韩国的生物医学期刊编辑提供了一个极好的机会，可以将期刊语言更改为英语，并生成全文JATS（journal Article Tag Suite）XML文件。这些因素使韩国在学术协会或研究所出版的PMC期刊中排名第二。
{"title":"PubMed Central as a platform for the survival of open-access biomedical society journals published in Korea","authors":"Sun Huh","doi":"10.6087/kcse.247","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.247","url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":43802,"journal":{"name":"Science Editing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44439891","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article aims to explain the key metadata elements listed in Participation Reports, why it’s important to check them regularly, and how Crossref members can improve their scores. Crossref members register a lot of metadata in Crossref. That metadata is machine-readable, standardized, and then shared across discovery services and author tools. This is important because richer metadata makes content more discoverable and useful to the scholarly community. It’s not always easy to know what metadata Crossref members register in Crossref. This is why Crossref created an easy-to-use tool called Participation Reports to show editors, and researchers the key metadata elements Crossref members register to make their content more useful. The key metadata elements include references and whether they are set to open, ORCID iDs, funding information, Crossmark metadata, licenses, full-text URLs for text-mining, and Similarity Check indexing, as well as abstracts. ROR IDs (Research Organization Registry Identifiers), that identify institutions will be added in the future. This data was always available through the Crossref ’s REST API (Representational State Transfer Application Programming Interface) but is now visualized in Participation Reports. To improve scores, editors should encourage authors to submit ORCIDs in their manuscripts and publishers should register as much metadata as possible to help drive research further.
本文旨在解释参与报告中列出的关键元数据元素，为什么定期检查它们很重要，以及Crossref成员如何提高分数。Crossref成员在Crossref中注册了大量元数据。该元数据是机器可读的、标准化的，然后在发现服务和作者工具之间共享。这一点很重要，因为更丰富的元数据使内容更容易被发现，对学术界更有用。要知道Crossref成员在Crossref中注册了什么元数据并不总是那么容易。这就是为什么Crossref创建了一个名为“参与报告”的易于使用的工具，向编辑和研究人员展示Crossref成员注册的关键元数据元素，以使其内容更有用。关键的元数据元素包括引用以及它们是否设置为打开、ORCID ID ID、资金信息、Crossmark元数据、许可证、用于文本挖掘的全文URL、相似性检查索引以及摘要。ROR ID（研究组织注册标识符），用于识别机构，将在未来添加。这些数据总是可以通过Crossref的REST API（代表性状态转移应用程序编程接口）获得，但现在可以在参与报告中可视化。为了提高分数，编辑应该鼓励作者在手稿中提交ORCID，出版商应该注册尽可能多的元数据，以帮助推动研究的进一步发展。
{"title":"Participation Reports help Crossref members drive research further","authors":"Anna Tolwinska","doi":"10.6087/kcse.253","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.253","url":null,"abstract":"This article aims to explain the key metadata elements listed in Participation Reports, why it’s important to check them regularly, and how Crossref members can improve their scores. Crossref members register a lot of metadata in Crossref. That metadata is machine-readable, standardized, and then shared across discovery services and author tools. This is important because richer metadata makes content more discoverable and useful to the scholarly community. It’s not always easy to know what metadata Crossref members register in Crossref. This is why Crossref created an easy-to-use tool called Participation Reports to show editors, and researchers the key metadata elements Crossref members register to make their content more useful. The key metadata elements include references and whether they are set to open, ORCID iDs, funding information, Crossmark metadata, licenses, full-text URLs for text-mining, and Similarity Check indexing, as well as abstracts. ROR IDs (Research Organization Registry Identifiers), that identify institutions will be added in the future. This data was always available through the Crossref ’s REST API (Representational State Transfer Application Programming Interface) but is now visualized in Participation Reports. To improve scores, editors should encourage authors to submit ORCIDs in their manuscripts and publishers should register as much metadata as possible to help drive research further.","PeriodicalId":43802,"journal":{"name":"Science Editing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49091753","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Academic research during and after the COVID-19 pandemic","authors":"Kihong Kim","doi":"10.6087/kcse.245","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.245","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43802,"journal":{"name":"Science Editing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47916635","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：