1.Preserving the Integrity of Citations and References by All Stakeholders of Science Communication.
Armen Yuri GASPARYAN ; Marlen YESSIRKEPOV ; Alexander A VORONOV ; Alexey N GERASIMOV ; Elena I KOSTYUKOVA ; George D KITAS
Journal of Korean Medical Science 2015;30(11):1545-1552
Citations to scholarly items are building bricks for multidisciplinary science communication. Citation analyses are currently influencing individual career advancement and ranking of academic and research institutions worldwide. This article overviews the involvement of scientific authors, reviewers, editors, publishers, indexers, and learned associations in the citing and referencing to preserve the integrity of science communication. Authors are responsible for thorough bibliographic searches to select relevant references for their articles, comprehend main points, and cite them in an ethical way. Reviewers and editors may perform additional searches and recommend missing essential references. Publishers, in turn, are in a position to instruct their authors over the citations and references, provide tools for validation of references, and open access to bibliographies. Publicly available reference lists bear important information about the novelty and relatedness of the scholarly items with the published literature. Few editorial associations have dealt with the issue of citations and properly managed references. As a prime example, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) issued in December 2014 an updated set of recommendations on the need for citing primary literature and avoiding unethical references, which are applicable to the global scientific community. With the exponential growth of literature and related references, it is critically important to define functions of all stakeholders of science communication in curbing the issue of irrational and unethical citations and thereby improve the quality and indexability of scholarly journals.
Authorship/standards
;
*Bibliography as Topic
;
*Editorial Policies
;
Information Dissemination/ethics
;
Peer Review, Research/ethics/*standards
;
Periodicals as Topic/ethics/*standards
;
Publishing/ethics/*standards
;
Quality Control
;
Science/ethics/standards
;
Writing/*standards
2.The Pressure to Publish More and the Scope of Predatory Publishing Activities.
Armen Yuri GASPARYAN ; Bekaidar NURMASHEV ; Alexander A VORONOV ; Alexey N GERASIMOV ; Anna M KOROLEVA ; George D KITAS
Journal of Korean Medical Science 2016;31(12):1874-1878
This article overviews unethical publishing practices in connection with the pressure to publish more. Both open-access and subscription publishing models can be abused by 'predatory' authors, editors, and publishing outlets. Relevant examples of ‘prolific’ scholars are viewed through the prism of the violation of ethical authorship in established journals and indiscriminately boosting publication records elsewhere. The instances of ethical transgressions by brokering editorial agencies and agents, operating predominantly in non-Anglophone countries, are presented to raise awareness of predatory activities. The scheme of predatory publishing activities is presented, and several measures are proposed to tackle the issue of predatory publishing. The awareness campaigns by professional societies, consultations with information facilitators, implementation of the criteria of best target journals, and crediting of scholars with use of integrative citation metrics, such as the h-index, are believed to make a difference.
Authorship
;
Publications
;
Referral and Consultation
3.Rewarding Peer Reviewers: Maintaining the Integrity of Science Communication.
Armen Yuri GASPARYAN ; Alexey N GERASIMOV ; Alexander A VORONOV ; George D KITAS
Journal of Korean Medical Science 2015;30(4):360-364
This article overviews currently available options for rewarding peer reviewers. Rewards and incentives may help maintain the quality and integrity of scholarly publications. Publishers around the world implemented a variety of financial and nonfinancial mechanisms for incentivizing their best reviewers. None of these is proved effective on its own. A strategy of combined rewards and credits for the reviewers1 creative contributions seems a workable solution. Opening access to reviews and assigning publication credits to the best reviews is one of the latest achievements of digitization. Reviews, posted on academic networking platforms, such as Publons, add to the transparency of the whole system of peer review. Reviewer credits, properly counted and displayed on individual digital profiles, help distinguish the best contributors, invite them to review and offer responsible editorial posts.
*Communication
;
Fee-for-Service Plans
;
Humans
;
*Peer Review, Research
;
Periodicals as Topic
;
Publishing
;
*Reward
;
Science
4.Specialist Bibliographic Databases.
Armen Yuri GASPARYAN ; Marlen YESSIRKEPOV ; Alexander A VORONOV ; Vladimir I TRUKHACHEV ; Elena I KOSTYUKOVA ; Alexey N GERASIMOV ; George D KITAS
Journal of Korean Medical Science 2016;31(5):660-673
Specialist bibliographic databases offer essential online tools for researchers and authors who work on specific subjects and perform comprehensive and systematic syntheses of evidence. This article presents examples of the established specialist databases, which may be of interest to those engaged in multidisciplinary science communication. Access to most specialist databases is through subscription schemes and membership in professional associations. Several aggregators of information and database vendors, such as EBSCOhost and ProQuest, facilitate advanced searches supported by specialist keyword thesauri. Searches of items through specialist databases are complementary to those through multidisciplinary research platforms, such as PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Familiarizing with the functional characteristics of biomedical and nonbiomedical bibliographic search tools is mandatory for researchers, authors, editors, and publishers. The database users are offered updates of the indexed journal lists, abstracts, author profiles, and links to other metadata. Editors and publishers may find particularly useful source selection criteria and apply for coverage of their peer-reviewed journals and grey literature sources. These criteria are aimed at accepting relevant sources with established editorial policies and quality controls.
*Databases, Bibliographic
;
Databases, Factual
;
Editorial Policies
;
Humans
;
Information Storage and Retrieval
;
Periodicals as Topic
;
Publishing