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.
{"title":"Relationship between publication indicators and citation impact indicators for publications in business, management, and accounting listed in Scopus from 2015 to 2019","authors":"Hyunju Jang","doi":"10.6087/KCSE.225","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.6087/KCSE.225","url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":43802,"journal":{"name":"Science Editing","volume":"8 1","pages":"18-25"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43619476","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}
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.
{"title":"Comparison of length limits and the actual length of abstracts in pharmacology, oncology, and neurology journals listed in PubMed","authors":"Eungi Kim, Yong-Gu Lee","doi":"10.6087/KCSE.228","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.6087/KCSE.228","url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":43802,"journal":{"name":"Science Editing","volume":"8 1","pages":"39-46"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46011138","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}
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.
{"title":"Consultation questions on publication ethics from 2016 to 2020 addressed by the Committee on Publication Ethics of the Korean Council of Science Editors","authors":"Woo Jin Son, C. Yun","doi":"10.6087/KCSE.238","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.6087/KCSE.238","url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":43802,"journal":{"name":"Science Editing","volume":"8 1","pages":"112-116"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46251573","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}
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.
{"title":"Preprint acceptance policies of Asian academic society journals in 2020","authors":"Y. Choi, H. Choi, Soon Kim","doi":"10.6087/KCSE.224","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.6087/KCSE.224","url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":43802,"journal":{"name":"Science Editing","volume":"8 1","pages":"10-17"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45267105","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}
R. Kusuma, I. Widianingsih, S. Ningrum, Rita Myrna
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.
{"title":"Five clusters of flood management articles in Scopus from 2000 to 2019 using social network analysis","authors":"R. Kusuma, I. Widianingsih, S. Ningrum, Rita Myrna","doi":"10.6087/KCSE.234","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.6087/KCSE.234","url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":43802,"journal":{"name":"Science Editing","volume":"8 1","pages":"85-92"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41590536","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}
Purpose: This study analyzed the bibliometric characteristics of publications on inclusive education in the Social Science Citation Index and Science Citation Index Expanded in the Web of Science Core Collection from 1992 to 2020. Methods: Terms related to “inclusive education” and “inclusion of education” were used as keywords to search for journal articles on July 3, 2020. Results: There were 1,786 articles, representing 3,376 authors, in the 345 journals scanned. The United States, United Kingdom, and Australia were the three leading countries/regions in this field. In the top 12 countries, the top 15 institutions and the top 10 most-cited journals were identified by either the number of publications or the number of total citations. Core themes from the 30 most highly-cited articles were teachers’ attitudes, teachers’ self-efficacy, and the effects of inclusive education. Teachers included both pre-service and in-service teachers; students represented those with and without special educational needs. Conclusion: The results indicate that the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia dominated inclusive education research, originating most of the highly-cited articles, having more prolific authors, and presenting the most-cited institutions. Furthermore, three emerging core themes from the 30 most highly-cited articles were teachers’ attitudes, teachers’ self-efficacy, and the effects of inclusive education. Frontline teachers are recommended to submit manuscripts about their teaching experiences to the most-cited journals, which have a large readership. To measure the effects of inclusive education, it is essential to formulate reliable, valid, and culturefree research instruments for future studies.
{"title":"Bibliometric analysis of publications on inclusive education from the Web of Science Core Collection published from 1992 to 2020","authors":"Jia-Fen Wu, Xiaoxiao Lin","doi":"10.6087/KCSE.233","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.6087/KCSE.233","url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: This study analyzed the bibliometric characteristics of publications on inclusive education in the Social Science Citation Index and Science Citation Index Expanded in the Web of Science Core Collection from 1992 to 2020. Methods: Terms related to “inclusive education” and “inclusion of education” were used as keywords to search for journal articles on July 3, 2020. Results: There were 1,786 articles, representing 3,376 authors, in the 345 journals scanned. The United States, United Kingdom, and Australia were the three leading countries/regions in this field. In the top 12 countries, the top 15 institutions and the top 10 most-cited journals were identified by either the number of publications or the number of total citations. Core themes from the 30 most highly-cited articles were teachers’ attitudes, teachers’ self-efficacy, and the effects of inclusive education. Teachers included both pre-service and in-service teachers; students represented those with and without special educational needs. Conclusion: The results indicate that the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia dominated inclusive education research, originating most of the highly-cited articles, having more prolific authors, and presenting the most-cited institutions. Furthermore, three emerging core themes from the 30 most highly-cited articles were teachers’ attitudes, teachers’ self-efficacy, and the effects of inclusive education. Frontline teachers are recommended to submit manuscripts about their teaching experiences to the most-cited journals, which have a large readership. To measure the effects of inclusive education, it is essential to formulate reliable, valid, and culturefree research instruments for future studies.","PeriodicalId":43802,"journal":{"name":"Science Editing","volume":"8 1","pages":"79-84"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42075181","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}
Purpose: This bibliometric study investigated the current state of documents on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and Islamic finance published by digital object identifiere-quipped journals listed in the Dimensions database The analysis focused on describing the characterictics and trends of the keywords, authors, and journals Methods: The data analyzed were from 149 research publications in Dimensions The search tems were "COVID" and "Islamic finance " The searches used to establish the study dataset were last updated on August 27, 2020 Descriptive statistical methods were used, and a bibliometric analysis was conducted using Biblioshiny, an R-based app, to generate a bibliometric map Results: The number of articles discussing the theme of COVID-19 and Islamic finance was quite large in recent months, with more than 100 articles published The most popular keywords used were "COVID," "food," and "pandemic," although there were also many keywords that related more specifically to the field of Islamic finance, namely "banks," "markets," "health," "debt," "equity," "management," and "stock " Conclusion: This study provides an overview of trends in the most popular keywords, journals, and authors of articles on the topic of COVID-19 and Islamic finance, which has been quite a popular theme in recent months, thereby providing information for researchers specializing in the field of Islamic finance This theme has the potential to continue to be developed
{"title":"Bibliometric analysis of journals, authors, and topics related to COVID-19 and Islamic finance listed in the Dimensions database by Biblioshiny","authors":"A. Rusydiana","doi":"10.6087/KCSE.232","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.6087/KCSE.232","url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: This bibliometric study investigated the current state of documents on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and Islamic finance published by digital object identifiere-quipped journals listed in the Dimensions database The analysis focused on describing the characterictics and trends of the keywords, authors, and journals Methods: The data analyzed were from 149 research publications in Dimensions The search tems were \"COVID\" and \"Islamic finance \" The searches used to establish the study dataset were last updated on August 27, 2020 Descriptive statistical methods were used, and a bibliometric analysis was conducted using Biblioshiny, an R-based app, to generate a bibliometric map Results: The number of articles discussing the theme of COVID-19 and Islamic finance was quite large in recent months, with more than 100 articles published The most popular keywords used were \"COVID,\" \"food,\" and \"pandemic,\" although there were also many keywords that related more specifically to the field of Islamic finance, namely \"banks,\" \"markets,\" \"health,\" \"debt,\" \"equity,\" \"management,\" and \"stock \" Conclusion: This study provides an overview of trends in the most popular keywords, journals, and authors of articles on the topic of COVID-19 and Islamic finance, which has been quite a popular theme in recent months, thereby providing information for researchers specializing in the field of Islamic finance This theme has the potential to continue to be developed","PeriodicalId":43802,"journal":{"name":"Science Editing","volume":"8 1","pages":"72-78"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44624674","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}
Purpose: The aim of this study was to characterize the network of institutions, journals, and topics of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) literature by Korean authors in the Web of Science Core Collection The specific goals were to identify the collaborative relationships between Korean authors and international authors and to explore clusters of institutions, journals, and topics Methods: Literature was searched in the Web of Science Core Collection on January 30, 2021 The search terms were "SARS-CoV-2" or "COVID" or "novel coronavirus" in the subject field The search results were limited again to "South Korea" as the country and the publication type of "article " The measurement tool was Biblioshiny, an app version tool for Bibliometrix Results: Korean authors published 3 2 times more COVID-19-related articles in journals outside of Korea than in Korean journals The journals showed three clusters by bibliographic coupling In contrast, the co-citation network showed four clusters Only a few journals were included in the clusters in both analyses The conceptual structure of Keywords Plus by factorial analysis showed two clusters: "pathology and clinical treatment" and "knowledge and attitudes " Institutions' collaborative network consisted of four clusters Korean researchers actively collaborated with international researchers, especially those in the United States Conclusion: Because only a few Korean journals were included in the journal clusters by both coupling and co-citation network, more active citation of Korean journals is recommended The identification of human behavior as a distinct theme in COVID-19 research suggests a different focus in this area besides clinical studies
{"title":"Network of institutions, source journals, and keywords on COVID-19 by Korean authors based on the Web of Science Core Collection in January 2021","authors":"K. Kim, G. Jeong","doi":"10.6087/KCSE.229","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.6087/KCSE.229","url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: The aim of this study was to characterize the network of institutions, journals, and topics of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) literature by Korean authors in the Web of Science Core Collection The specific goals were to identify the collaborative relationships between Korean authors and international authors and to explore clusters of institutions, journals, and topics Methods: Literature was searched in the Web of Science Core Collection on January 30, 2021 The search terms were \"SARS-CoV-2\" or \"COVID\" or \"novel coronavirus\" in the subject field The search results were limited again to \"South Korea\" as the country and the publication type of \"article \" The measurement tool was Biblioshiny, an app version tool for Bibliometrix Results: Korean authors published 3 2 times more COVID-19-related articles in journals outside of Korea than in Korean journals The journals showed three clusters by bibliographic coupling In contrast, the co-citation network showed four clusters Only a few journals were included in the clusters in both analyses The conceptual structure of Keywords Plus by factorial analysis showed two clusters: \"pathology and clinical treatment\" and \"knowledge and attitudes \" Institutions' collaborative network consisted of four clusters Korean researchers actively collaborated with international researchers, especially those in the United States Conclusion: Because only a few Korean journals were included in the journal clusters by both coupling and co-citation network, more active citation of Korean journals is recommended The identification of human behavior as a distinct theme in COVID-19 research suggests a different focus in this area besides clinical studies","PeriodicalId":43802,"journal":{"name":"Science Editing","volume":"8 1","pages":"47-56"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42086251","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}
The National Information Standards Organization (NISO) Manuscript Exchange Common Approach (MECA) project is a cross-organization industry initiative to develop a common approach to manuscript transfer that can be adopted across the scholarly publishing industry. MECA establishes a vocabulary set that includes transfer, review, and manifest models. These models are designed to work with different article XML schemas, including the latest NISO Journal Article Tag Suite (JATS) standard (v1.2). In order to avoid conflicts between these project vocabularies and the JATS, we reviewed the MECA vocabularies against the NISO JATS Compatibility Meta Model (v0.7). This paper describes the review and analysis of the MECA schemas against the JATS Meta Model, how we documented the analysis, and the recommendations we made to resolve issues revealed by the analysis. It includes the documentation we produced to communicate the results of the analysis and what actions we took to move forward with the project, including both changes to the schemas and requests for changes in the JATS. We hope sharing our experiences with this process will help others who are trying to do the same.
{"title":"Manuscript Exchange Common Approach and Journal Article Tag Suite (JATS) compatibility: a case study utilizing the JATS Compatibility Meta Model","authors":"Laura Randall, Sally Ubnoske","doi":"10.6087/KCSE.235","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.6087/KCSE.235","url":null,"abstract":"The National Information Standards Organization (NISO) Manuscript Exchange Common Approach (MECA) project is a cross-organization industry initiative to develop a common approach to manuscript transfer that can be adopted across the scholarly publishing industry. MECA establishes a vocabulary set that includes transfer, review, and manifest models. These models are designed to work with different article XML schemas, including the latest NISO Journal Article Tag Suite (JATS) standard (v1.2). In order to avoid conflicts between these project vocabularies and the JATS, we reviewed the MECA vocabularies against the NISO JATS Compatibility Meta Model (v0.7). This paper describes the review and analysis of the MECA schemas against the JATS Meta Model, how we documented the analysis, and the recommendations we made to resolve issues revealed by the analysis. It includes the documentation we produced to communicate the results of the analysis and what actions we took to move forward with the project, including both changes to the schemas and requests for changes in the JATS. We hope sharing our experiences with this process will help others who are trying to do the same.","PeriodicalId":43802,"journal":{"name":"Science Editing","volume":"8 1","pages":"93-97"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46461877","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}
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 most-cited 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
目的:本研究的主要目的是分析2019冠状病毒病(COVID-19)发表论文的文献类型和语言，以及主要作者、出版物、国家、机构和学科，分析被引最多的COVID-19文献的关键词共现情况和国家、来源的书目耦合情况。本研究分析了2019年12月至2020年6月期间发表的16384篇COVID-19研究，使用“COVID-19”、“冠状病毒”、“2019- ncov”和“SARS-CoV-2”四个关键词从Web of Science数据库中提取数据，对被引频次最高的前500篇文献进行了书目和引文网络可视化分析。在157个研究产出国中，美国(25433%)占主导地位，Wang Y (n=94)为第一作者，BMJ (n=488)为第一来源，伦敦大学(n=488)为第一机构，医学相关论文(n= 2259)占最高比例。关键词共现分析发现“冠状病毒”、“COVID-19”、“SARS-CoV-2”、对国家和来源的文献耦合分析显示，中美两国、《新英格兰医学杂志》和《美国医学会杂志》之间的合作联系最为密切。尽管《英国医学杂志》(BMJ)是COVID-19文章的主要标题，但《新英格兰医学杂志》(New England Journal of Medicine)和《美国医学会杂志》(JAMA)之间的共同作者联系是最强的
{"title":"A bibliometric and co-occurrence analysis of COVID-19–related literature published between December 2019 and June 2020","authors":"Md. Sayeed Al-Zaman","doi":"10.6087/KCSE.230","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.6087/KCSE.230","url":null,"abstract":"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 most-cited 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","PeriodicalId":43802,"journal":{"name":"Science Editing","volume":"8 1","pages":"57-63"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2021-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44836948","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：