No abstract available.
*Authorship ; *Editorial Policies ; Guideline Adherence/standards ; Korea ; Ownership/*standards ; Peer Review, Research/*standards ; Periodicals as Topic/*standards ; Writing/*standards

PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to assess the quality of meta-analyses on nursing published in South Korea. METHODS: Relevant meta-analyses were identified through searches of the National Assembly Library, KISS (Korean Studies Information Service System), and the DBpia and RISS4U databases from 1990 to May 2013. Quality assessments were conducted using AMSTAR, a validated tool for assessing the quality of systematic reviews. RESULTS: Forty-two meta-analyses were included in this study. Twenty-nine published between 1990 and 2010, and 13, between 2011 and May 2013. Two high quality studies and 11 moderate quality studies were published in the latter period. The mean score for the reviews was 5.61 (range 3-10); 11 studies were rated as low quality, 29 as moderate quality, and two as high quality. CONCLUSION: Although an improvement in the quality of meta-analyses conducted by nursing researchers in South Korea was observed across the study period, the study results indicate a need to use of more rigorous research methods when conducting systematic reviews or meta-analyses.
Databases, Factual ; Humans ; Nursing Research/*standards ; Peer Review, Research ; Republic of Korea

Chinese surgery journals are of small international impact which does not measure up to the state of development of surgery in China and they can not adequately publish Chinese researches to the world. To improve the visibility of Chinese surgery journals, this article suggests developing more English surgery journals, extending a co-operation with famous publishers, employing overseas experts as editorial committee and making more use of the Internet.
General Surgery ; International Cooperation ; Journal Impact Factor ; Peer Review, Research ; Periodicals as Topic ; standards

PURPOSE: This study was performed to identify current characteristics of the Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing and to explore a way to elevate it to an international level and to critique the overall review process so as to delineate the advanced, objective paper appraisal in this journal. METHODS: Data was collected using self administered questionnaires to 75 journal reviewers belonging to the Korean academy of nursing and its division academy of nursing from August 15th to September 30th, 2006. RESULTS: The majority of reviewers pointed out a lack of discrimination between the Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing and other journals. Among the main answers of reviewers, Creativeness(52.3%) and excellence of nursing(38%) will be critical factors to develop in order to elevate to an the journal to an international level. In specific evaluation areas, reviewers preferred a subjective critique method(60%), and the condition of the decision making process regarding paper acceptance as a combination of checklist and subjective evaluation(84%). Subjective evaluation opinions with major categories will occur in the next revised evaluation format. 76% of reviewers agreed with the current objective evaluation form. CONCLUSIONS: The journal review process should be evaluated on a regular basis to elevate the journal level and a mutual agreement of the journal's scope, range, and purpose will be necessary. As a recommendation, an attempt at various approaches in journal reviews and reviewer training should be made.
Adult ; Advisory Committees/standards ; Editorial Policies ; Female ; Humans ; Korea ; Male ; Middle Aged ; *Nursing Research ; *Peer Review, Research ; Periodicals as Topic/*standards

PURPOSE: This study was performed to identify current characteristics of the Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing and to explore a way to elevate it to an international level and to critique the overall review process so as to delineate the advanced, objective paper appraisal in this journal. METHODS: Data was collected using self administered questionnaires to 75 journal reviewers belonging to the Korean academy of nursing and its division academy of nursing from August 15th to September 30th, 2006. RESULTS: The majority of reviewers pointed out a lack of discrimination between the Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing and other journals. Among the main answers of reviewers, Creativeness(52.3%) and excellence of nursing(38%) will be critical factors to develop in order to elevate to an the journal to an international level. In specific evaluation areas, reviewers preferred a subjective critique method(60%), and the condition of the decision making process regarding paper acceptance as a combination of checklist and subjective evaluation(84%). Subjective evaluation opinions with major categories will occur in the next revised evaluation format. 76% of reviewers agreed with the current objective evaluation form. CONCLUSIONS: The journal review process should be evaluated on a regular basis to elevate the journal level and a mutual agreement of the journal's scope, range, and purpose will be necessary. As a recommendation, an attempt at various approaches in journal reviews and reviewer training should be made.
Adult ; Advisory Committees/standards ; Editorial Policies ; Female ; Humans ; Korea ; Male ; Middle Aged ; *Nursing Research ; *Peer Review, Research ; Periodicals as Topic/*standards

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

No abstract available.
Abstracting and Indexing as Topic/standards ; *Editorial Policies ; *Guidelines as Topic ; Humans ; Korea ; Linguistics ; Manuals as Topic ; Nursing Research/*standards ; Peer Review, Research ; Periodicals as Topic/*standards ; Research Design/standards ; Societies, Scientific ; Translating ; Writing/*standards

OBJECTIVETo evaluate the quality of methodology and reporting of randomized controlled trials of acupuncture for obesity worldwide.

METHODSCollecting all the randomized controlled trials of acupuncture for obesity worldwide by systematically searching without language limitation. The quality of methodology and reporting was evaluated by the quality criteria recommended by Cochrane handbook and CONSORT (consolidate standards of reporting trial) and STRICTA (standard for reporting interventions in controlled trials of acupuncture) checklists.

RESULTSSeven randomized controlled trials of acupuncture for obesity were identified. The quality of methodology was graded as "A" in one trial, "B" in two trials and "C" in the other four trials. The reporting quality of the seven trials was graded as "C".

CONCLUSIONSThe methodology quality of the randomized controlled trials of acupuncture for obesity was too poor to provide strong evidence for clinical practice, and the poor reporting quality of the trials resulted in inadequate information from the trials.

Acupuncture Therapy ; methods ; standards ; Evaluation Studies as Topic ; Humans ; Medical Records ; standards ; Obesity ; therapy ; Peer Review, Research ; standards ; Practice Guidelines as Topic ; Publishing ; standards ; Quality Control ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic ; standards ; Research Design ; standards