ABSTRACT
In Korea, many editors of medical journal are also publishers; therefore, they need to not only manage peer review, but also understand current trends and policies in journal publishing and editing. This article aims to highlight some of these policies with examples. First, the use of artificial intelligence tools in journal publishing has increased, including for manuscript editing and plagiarism detection. Second, preprint publications, which have not been peer-reviewed, are becoming more common. During the COVID-19 pandemic, medical journals have been more willing to accept preprints to adjust rapidly changing pandemic health issues, leading to a significant increase in their use. Third, open peer review with reviewer comments is becoming more widespread, including the mandatory publication of peer-reviewed manuscripts with comments. Fourth, model text recycling policies provide guidelines for researchers and editors on how to appropriately recycle text, for example, in the background section of the Introduction or the Methods section. Fifth, journals should take into account the recently updated 4th version of the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing, released in 2022. This version includes more detailed guidelines on journal websites, peer review processes, advisory boards, and author fees. Finally, it recommends that titles of human studies include country names to clarify the cultural context of the research. Each editor must decide whether to adopt these six policies for their journals. Editor-publishers of society journals are encouraged to familiarize themselves with these policies so that they can implement them in their journals as appropriate.
Subject(s)
Periodicals as Topic , Bibliometrics , Educational Measurement , Health Occupations , HumansABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: A bibliometric analysis of the Annals of Laboratory Medicine (ALM) was performed to understand its position in the medical laboratory technology category and to suggest a developmental strategy. METHODS: Journal metrics, including the number of articles by publication type, country of authors, total citations, 2-year impact factor, country of cited authors, journals citing ALM, and Hirsch-index, were obtained from the Journal Citation Report and Web of Science Core Collection. Target data included ALM content in the Web of Science from January 1, 2012, to October 5, 2021. Bibliometric analysis was performed using Biblioshiny. RESULTS: The impact factor increased from 1.481 in 2013 to 3.464 in 2020. Authors belonging to the USA, China, and Korea cited ALM articles the most. Plos One, Scientific Reports, and Frontiers in Microbiology most frequently cited ALM, besides ALM itself. The Hirsch-index was 34. The co-occurrence network of Keyword Plus indicated four clusters: diagnosis, identification, prevalence, and risk. The conceptual structure map of Keyword Plus based on multiple correspondence analysis showed two clusters: bacterial susceptibility at the bench and clinical courses. The co-citation network showed that ALM was in the cluster of the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, JAMA, and the Annals of Internal Medicine. The collaboration network showed that Korean authors collaborated mainly with authors from the USA, Germany, and Italy. CONCLUSIONS: The journal's promotion to an international top-tier journal has been successful. "Principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing" and a preprint policy are yet to be added.
Subject(s)
Leadership , Medical Laboratory Science , Bibliometrics , Humans , Italy , LaboratoriesABSTRACT
Purpose: This study examined changes in Asian journal editors' daily life and work during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and investigated their opinions on expected changes, thereby providing preliminary data to support the future needs of journal editors. Methods: A survey questionnaire was developed and sent to 1,537 editors and staff of Asian scientific journals from July 13 to 19, 2020. The items gathered information on participants' general characteristics, changes in daily life, changes in work life, anticipated future changes, and suggestions in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: Of the 152 respondents (response rate, 9.7%), most were editors. Fifty-seven respondents (37.5%) felt very or extremely anxious about the COVID-19 pandemic, and 101 (68.4%) reported spending more time on the internet. The workload of editing, reviewing, and publishing had increased for about one-third of respondents (34.2%, n=52). Forty-four respondents (28.9%) said that the number of submissions had increased. Of the 68 editors who had received manuscripts on COVID-19, 30 (44.1%) prioritized them. Most respondents (73.7%, n=112) predicted that online-only journal publishing would expand after the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusion: COVID-19 appears to be a source of anxiety to editors, which may be related to the increased time they spend on the internet. Some editors reported an increased workload. To promote online communication, a better environment and training tools are required. Editors and staff will need more opportunities to prepare for online publishing, as editors believed that the online-only publication of scholarly journals would accelerate after the COVID-19 pandemic.