Happy New Year! We hope that the first month of 2017 has been exciting and productive for you. A lot has been happening in the academic world - from Donald Trump’s immigration ban creating anxiety among scholars to the disappearance of Jeffrey Beall’s list of questionable journals and publishers. We want you to be tuned in to all the interesting happenings in academia. So here’s a list of snippets of some noteworthy news and publications from this month. Happy reading!

1. Academics protest Donald Trump’s immigration ban: The Donald Trump administration has already started creating waves of anxiety among scientists in the US. On January 27, the White House announced an immigration ban on people from seven Muslim-majority countries - Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. This ban applies to people who have valid US visas or green cards, even scientists and researchers, which has sent shockwaves among several sections of immigrants in the US. Thousands of researchers are living in the US as students, visiting scholars, or immigrants, and this decision would have a crippling effect on their future. Scientific research in the US is threatened, according to many academics. In an attempt to protest against this decision, about 3,000 academics, including Nobel Laureates, have signed a petition denouncing the discriminatory ban. What the Trump administration plans to do with visiting researchers from the blacklisted countries is unclear.  
    
2. Why researchers do not admit their mistakes openly: Mistakes happen in science, as they do in all professions. However, confessing to errors in research can be particularly difficult for scientists. In an interesting article, Holly Else explores the emotional, reputational, and practical barriers to correcting scientific mistakes. Some mistakes can be resolved with a correction, but if a mistake undermines the conclusions of the research, the journal or authors are typically expected to retract the paper. The same process is used to remove papers involving research misconduct, so there is often a significant stigma attached to retracting a paper even if the mistake is an honest one. The increasing complexity of research also makes mistakes more likely. The huge datasets that many researchers work with and the different statistical techniques available to analyze them can leave more room for error. What is more, it is often impossible to know whether a researcher’s error was deliberate or accidental. The possible repercussions of having stigma attached to their names can stop researchers from admitting their mistakes.
    
3. Jeffrey Beall’s list of predatory publishers unavailable: The news of the sudden disappearance of Jeffrey Beall's list created ripples in the academic world. Beall, an academic librarian at the University of Colorado in Denver, had a popular blog called Scholarly Open Access where he maintained a list of more than 1000 “potential, possible or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers.” The blog, however, disappeared suddenly without any explanation. Some believe that Beall was threatened to take the list down. While Beall's efforts at exposing fraudulent publishers were applauded by many academics and his list was considered a valuable resource, he was also criticized by some publishers and journals for harboring an overly negative perspective toward the open access publishing model. There were some discussions around the fact that Cabell's International had announced that they were working with Beall to create a list of questionable publishers. However, Cabell's International denied having any involvement in the incident. It is not known whether the list has been taken down permanently.
    
4. Uncertain future of EU academics in the post-Brexit UK:Some EU citizens living in Britain who decided to seek permanent residency after the Brexit vote are being told to leave the country. A number of these people are among the 31,000 EU academics currently working in UK universities. While the very process of applying for permanent residency is daunting and complex process resulting in many failed applications, what is causing more concern is the form of rejection. People whose applications are rejected are apparently receiving a letter from the Home Office asking them to make arrangements to leave, reports Colin Talbot. The letter states that if the applicant fails to make a voluntary departure, removal may be enforced. According to Talbot, many academics are alarmed and some have already decided to leave, putting the expertise of Britain’s universities in serious jeopardy. Some scientists consider this step to be damaging to the reputation of UK as a global higher education destination. As Prof Brian Cox, the University of Manchester academic and TV presenter, puts it: “The current rhetoric is the absolute opposite of what is required. The UK appears, from outside, to be increasingly unwelcoming and backward looking."
    
5. Do reviewers have a right to share their review publicly? As the concept of open peer review is gaining popularity, journals need to reconsider their copyright policies of review sharing. This issue has grabbed attention due to the recent disagreement between a reviewer and publishing giant Elsevier. Jonathan Tennant, a scientist who works as Communications Director at ScienceOpen, hoped to publish his review for an article submitted to the journal Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology on Publons, which is a site that for researchers to share, discuss and receive credit for peer review. When he attempted to publish his review with the permission from the paper's authors, his post was rejected on the grounds that this would breach the journal's policy. As it turned out, Elsevier's peer review policy disallows reviewers from sharing their review with anyone without permission from the journal editors. Tennant, however, maintained that he was never made aware of this policy and did not sign any agreement to the effect and should therefore have a right to share his review freely, a stance that validates consideration. The incident brings to light the need for transparent journal policies and the fact that journals should think of ways to give credit to reviewers for their work.
    
6. Does failure to replicate results indicate unreliable science? Replication is a powerful tool to validate science. However, there is an emerging consensus among scientists that if a replication effort fails, it doesn’t necessarily mean the original was wrong. In fact, it shows that replicating scientific research can be extremely difficult. The latest findings from the large-scale Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology echoed this sentiment. In this project, researchers focused on reproducing experiments from the highest-impact papers about cancer biology published from 2010 to 2012. They shared their results of their effort to reproduce the first set of five papers in the journal ELife— and not one of their replications definitively confirmed the original results. While some researchers feel that this indicates the lack of methodology details in published literature, others feel that this highlights the complexity of reproducing biological studies. 
    
7. The chasm between scientists and society: In a thought-provoking opinion piece, Helen Czerski talks about how scientists need to change the way they debate issues in science. She says that on the outside, scientific research and communication system looks sophisticated and ideal. The general assumption is that science is for the betterment of society, and this is known to and accepted by scientists and the general public. Also, the boost in open access publication makes it easier for lay people to access science. In reality, this is not the case. Despite the technological and process-related advancements, science remains inaccessible to the common man because it is not simplified, i.e., the manner in which it is communicated continues to be complex. The increased accessibility to information about everything makes it more difficult for science to connect with society and vice versa. Helen says that it is up to academia to bridge this gap and talk to members of society in a language they will understand, even if this means popularizing science or using social media to talk about scientific concepts in really simple terms. 

We hope you enjoyed reading these curated updates. Have you come across something you’d like to share with other researchers or publishing professionals? We’d love to read it too! Simply share your recommendations in the comments section below. And if you’d like to stay tuned to important happenings in the journal publishing industry, visit our Industry News section.

[This post was created for the Wolters-Kluwer author newsletter Author Resource Review and has been reproduced with permission.

This post is authored by Julie Rempfer, an Associate Publisher at Wolters Kluwer. She serves as a Publisher of a collection of Nursing and Health Care Management journals and is an enthusiastic social media user and strategist. You can find her on Twitter at julierempfer@twitter.com.] 

There is immense competition for an article to be recognized in this social age. In 2014 there were over 34,000 scholarly peer-reviewed journals worldwide, publishing  about 2.5 million articles each year.¹ In addition, countless news articles, e-newsletters, blog posts, and multimedia content (such as videos and podcasts) make information overload even more challenging for individual articles to be recognized. It is not humanly possible to read everything available, and as an author, it’s becoming more and more important for you to help your publisher promote your work to your peers. One of the easiest and most effective ways to do this is through social media, and this article will outline some tips to get you started and see how self-promotion can pay off. 

Planning for self-promotion

Before you start a self-promotion plan for one of your published articles, you need to determine who your audience is and what social platforms you should use to get their attention. Are you working with a peer on Facebook or is your article something of interest to family and friends? Are your colleagues and professional contacts only on LinkedIn or Twitter? Are you attending a conference with dedicated social media hangouts or networking opportunities? Are there other social media platforms worth investigating in your personal or professional life (Instagram, Snapchat, Pinterest, Reddit, GooglePlus, etc.)? By asking yourself ‘Who’ and ‘Where’, you may discover that you don’t need to promote your article on every single social media outlet. A focused, prepared plan is more attainable and more likely to be successful.

Once you know where to promote your article, the next step is to think about and craft your message. As the author, you know your work better than anyone else and can speak to what is new, different, or exciting about it and why reading your article is worth someone’s time. It also will give you a chance to show your expertise and how much time and energy went into the article, the project, the research study, etc. A great example could be something along the lines of, “My article on XYZ, published in Journal XYZ, discusses a breakthrough in something amazing. Peers, please read and let’s discuss implementation.” You should also think about different messages for different audiences. For instance, your family and friends may be more responsive to a simpler message, such as, “This is what I’ve been doing for the past 6 months”—with a link to your published work on the journal website.

Hashtags

Tweets with hashtags get two times more engagement than tweets without.² By using hashtags (#) in your social media post, you can direct your post to those in your specialty who are actively seeking information on the topic at hand. You can search for #Zika on Facebook or Twitter and see only those posts or tweets with the “Zika” hashtag, and these hashtag search results are often sorted by the most recently added post, which is helpful for the most recent news. Most conferences have a dedicated hashtag and should be considered a strategic way to connect with and to promote your article to your peers.  For example, the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS) witnessed over 37,000 posts with the hashtag #HIMSS15 in just the first two days of their 2015 annual conference.³ People are still communicating with posts containing hashtag #HIMSS16 ten months after the 2016 conference ended and active posts and conversations with hashtag #HIMSS2017 started during the summer of 2016. HIMSS 2017 will be held in February 2017.  Simply adding a related hashtag to your social media post will place the post in similar kinds of discussions and grow the discoverability of your work.

Tip: Not sure where to start? Check out www.Symplur.com/healthcare-hashtags for an up-to-date list of the most popular hashtags and topics that people are talking about right now in healthcare, including conferences, medical conditions, and diseases. You can use as many hashtags as you’d like in your post to have your tweet appear in multiple social media searches or conversations, but it’s best practice to keep it to less than two hashtags per post.²

Mentions

Taking it one step further, using hashtags is an effective and easy way to discover and interact with top industry contributors with whom you may want to follow and retweet some of their future posts. You can also mention people directly in your posts, perhaps a peer or new connection, by using the “@” symbol. This can be a simple hello, such as “@TopDoctor Nice to meet you at #ConferenceXYZ. Or, you can show collaboration with another peer or with the journal where your article was published, such as, “Excited to present on #Topic at #Conference2016 with @TopDoc. Read my paper in @JournalAccount http://bit.ly/shortenedlink. Your publisher may approve making the article free online for a limited time, such as during a conference when you would be presenting. If this is something you feel would be beneficial, discuss with your publisher in advance of the conference.

Tip: You can create shortened redirect links for free through www.bitly.com that will drive traffic to your article on the journal website, save you characters on Twitter, and provide analytics, such as how many people clicked on your link. There are many similar services out there, but for those getting started, we recommend bitly.com for its simple usage.

It’s also a good idea to set up redirect links and draft your posts in advance, either through an old-fashioned notepad with paper and pen, through e-mail, in a Word document or a notes app, or in drafts on Twitter or Facebook. This will allow you to copy and paste (or just hit publish) when you’re on the go and help your post get maximum attention while the conversation iron is hot!

Measuring self-promotion efforts via Altmetrics

Altmetrics are a new way to track the attention and conversations around individual articles in real time from a variety of sources other than citations, including social media, blogs, news outlets, and more. Unlike the Impact Factor, which measures citations of a journal as a whole over the course of the previous two years, Altmetrics measure each article and updates the information in real-time for anyone to see. An important distinction is that Altmetrics measure Attention– whether good, bad, or simply ridiculous. Some of the highest Altmetric attention scores, derived by the number and sources of attention, belong to fictitious or more general interest articles that appeal to the public. Therefore, a high score isn’t always a true indicator that your article has made a significant impact on the science or in your area of study. You can learn more about Altmetrics and the latest developments on their website: www.WhatAreAltmetrics.com.

Beginning in 2016, Wolters Kluwer added the Altmetrics badges on all of their journal websites and articles. This widget can be found on the right-hand column of any individual article on a Wolters Kluwer journal website (if you do not see this widget or the altmetric “donut” on your mobile device, change to desktop view). This Altmetric widget will show the numbers of tweets, Facebook posts, blog pickups, news pickups, and whatever other sources have mentioned your article, including your own social media pushes as an author and those from the journal and/or publisher. Clicking “See More Details” within the widget will show the exact tweets, blogs, news articles and other mentions that corresponded to the score, the reach of these mentions geographically, and an easy way to respond to each and continue the conversation around your article and your work.

Since Altmetrics were introduced, , Wolters Kluwer has seen a direct correlation between the attention scores and the self-promotion activities of authors via social media, blogs, and other sources such as press releases. Should your institution want to do a press release around your article, contact your publisher for our newly released Institution Press Release guidelines.  Adhering to these guidelines will properly alert the publisher’s social media managers and PR team to your institution’s press release and help maximize the attention to the article and your institution.

To see Altmetrics in action, take a look at a recent article published in Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, “Same-Sex and Different-Sex Parent Households and Child Health Outcomes: Findings from the National Survey of Children's Health.” By clicking the “See More Details” widget, you can see the actual mentions from a variety of sources, including the society, the authors and their institution, conversations happening on social media, and links to the news articles. This is a superb example of an impactful study and the positive attention it is receiving from around the globe.

In closing, there is so much more that can be done on social media and there are so many social platforms not mentioned here. Check out other social media platforms and explore additional ways to promote your article online.

References

1. Ware M, Mabe M. The STM Report: An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing. 4th edition. 2015. http://www.stm-assoc.org/2015_02_20_STM_Report_2015.pdf.

2. Buffer KL. How to use hashtags: How many, best ones, and where to use them. 2015. https://blog.bufferapp.com/a-scientific-guide-to-hashtags-which-ones-work-when-and-how-many.

3. Taken from a post on Twitter from @HIMSS 4/14/15.

Keeping abreast of the latest trends in scholarly publication is necessary for researchers, especially ESL authors. Therefore, Editage recently conducted eight workshops on ‘Trends in Academic Journal Publishing & Research Integrity’ at reputed South Korean institutions, including universities and hospitals. They were attended by over 800 doctors, researchers, journal editors, as well as university and hospital administrators.

The eight workshops were conducted over 6 days, with one each at the following institutions: Chosun University College of Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Sookmyung Women's University, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Pohang University of Science and Technology (POSTECH), Asan Medical Center, and Soonchunhyang Hospital. One workshop was also conducted for the Korea Association of Medical Journal Editors.

They were delivered by Dr. Elizabeth Wager, an academic publication trainer who has given training on behalf of Editage Insights for over five years. As an independent consultant, Dr. Wager has trained doctors, journal editors, and medical writers on six continents. She was Chair of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) between 2009 and 2012 and is a member of the ethics committees for the BMJ and the World Association of Medical Editors; she is therefore an internationally recognized authority on ethical publication practices.

In these workshops, Dr. Wager discussed publishing trends such as:

• Open access
• Predatory journals
• Peer review variants and new models
• Metrics

She explained these concepts, emphasized why authors should be familiar with them, and shared some important tips that can guide them when they make publication-related decisions.

She also discussed important aspects of publication ethics that researchers need to know. Authors may at times be unfamiliar with some ethical issues and the pitfalls associated with them. So she covered these topics: 

• Plagiarism
• Data fabrication and falsification
• Misleading authorship
• Selective reporting
• Conflicts of interest

She used examples and cases to explain how some of these problems can negatively impact research, the scientific fraternity and community at large, as well as the authors involved.

Barely two weeks into office, U.S. President Donald Trump has passed an executive order suspending the issuance of visas to citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Sudan, and Yemen) for 90 days. According to Trump, this is a step toward safeguarding the U.S. from terror attacks. As a result of this decision, academics from these countries working in the U.S., are panic-stricken.

As one of the leading nations in research and development, the U.S. attracts hundreds of foreign students and researcher every year. However, Trump’s executive order has left researchers and students in limbo since many of them belong to the countries banned from entering the U.S. Those who wished to go back to their homelands were unable to leave while others who had valid documents to enter the U.S. were detained at airports. There is a looming feeling of uncertainty and anxiety among academics over the future of their careers as well as personal lives. Many researchers feel that the disregard shown to them is unfair. “We are a productive part of this community — and now we’re banned. They just consider us to be terrorists,” said Maryam Saeedi, an assistant professor of economics at Carnegie Mellon University.

The ban is likely to affect disrupt scientific research activities in the country in many ways. Researchers from the banned countries will not be able to attend conferences. Selma de Mink, who is an astrophysicist at the University of Amsterdam, noted that her postdoctoral candidate would probably not be able to deliver a talk in an event in California, which could damage his career. In fact several academics are contemplating leaving the U.S. permanently due to the political turmoil. Neo Mohsenvand, an Iranian PhD student at MIT, echoed the sentiments of several researchers facing the same predicament: “Even with all the problems that we have there [Iran], it is still more desirable than the US because we don’t know what else can happen here”.   

Protesting the President’s order, more than 7000 academics – including over 40 Nobel Laureates – signed an open letter titled “Academics Against Immigration Executive Order.” It decries the executive order calling it “inhumane, ineffective, and un-American,” while warning that it “significantly damages American leadership in higher education and research.” In addition, researchers have organized a March for Science in Washington D.C. on Earth Day i.e. 22 April to celebrate “passion for science and a call to support and safeguard the scientific community.” The march is being supported by scientific communities in eight European countries who plan to conduct similar rallies.

Overall, the academic landscape in the U.S. seems to be in a state of tumult. There was much skepticism among academics about Trump’s selection as a Presidential candidate, but this executive order may have widened the gap between him and the academics. It remains to be seen whether the efforts of the science community succeed in amending the President’s order.

Please share your thoughts on this issue in the comments section. 

Recommended reading:

What does Donald Trump's victory mean for science?

References:

Scientists’ lives upended by Trump’s immigration order

A March for Science—in April: The ScienceInsider briefing

How Trump’s immigration order affects scientists

Trump's immigration ban is already having a chilling effect on science

European researchers spin off sister marches for science in at least eight countries

As a researcher you are under immense pressure to publish and one good way to start publishing is to convert your doctoral thesis into a journal article, after your PhD. Before you begin writing, it is essential for you to know exactly how a thesis differs from a journal article. This infographic lists nine ways in which a thesis is different from a journal article. The idea is to help you understand how the two are distinct types of academic writing, meant for different audiences and written for different purposes.

Feel free to download a PDF version of this infographic and print it out as handy reference.

You might also be interested in reading:

• The basics of converting your PhD thesis into journal articles
• Tips on rewriting your thesis as a journal article

Dr. Hyungsun Kim, Professor at the School of Materials Engineering, Inha University, Korea, has 20 years of experience teaching academic writing and best publication practices to Asian researchers and journal editors. Following a PhD from Imperial College London (1989), Dr. Kim worked as a Research Fellow at the University of Oxford and as Professor in the Materials Science and Metallurgical Engineering Department at Sunchon National University, Korea. Dr. Kim has been an active academic and publishing professional. In addition to sitting on the editorial boards of several academic journals, Dr. Kim serves as an adviser for the Content Selection Board for SCOPUS in Korea. He is the newest President of the Korean Council of Science Editors (KSCE) and is a member of several professional societies including the Council of Asian Science Editors (CASE, of which he is the Secretary General), and the National Academy of Engineering of Korea. He has also authored four books: Special Topics for Scientific Ethics (2011), How to Write Correctly Scientific Papers (2010), Engineering Communications (2009, in Korean), and Make Only 10% Change to Your Papers (2003, in Korean). Dr. Kim is passionate about promoting good publication practices among researchers and editors. He has conducted several seminars and workshops for graduate students, researchers, and editors in Korea, Japan, China, and Russia. During these sessions he covered a range of topics including tips for writing academic articles, creating a publication strategy, and registering journals in global indexing databases.

Korea is emerging as a major contributor to the global scientific research landscape and this was a great opportunity to connect with Dr. Kim to hear his views about academic publishing and research in Korea. As the President of KCSE, Dr. Kim talks about the aims and activities of the council. He also reveals the main barriers to the development of Korean research and elaborates the areas in which Korean researchers need training and support. Based on his own experience, Dr. Kim shares some useful advice for researchers in Asia, where the race to publish and the impact factor chase dominate the research and publishing landscape.

Could you give us a brief overview of the Korean Council of Science Editors (KCSE)? What are its mission and objectives?

Founded in 2011, the Korean Council of Science Editors (KCSE) has 323 academic journals (including 261 academic organizations and institutions), 54 individual members, and 20 special corporate members. The goal of KCSE is to promote the quality of scientific journals published in Korea and contribute to scientific advancement by exchanging information and knowledge about scientific publishing and holding discussions around editing scholarly literature.

The activities we primarily focus on are:

• Education and training (professional development programs, e.g., manuscript writing, reviewing, and editing)
• Publication ethics (planning and execution of publication ethics)
• External affairs (building a network on local and international editors and associations)
• Sharing information and publications (providing our members valuable information on the development of scientific publishing through newsletters and science editing services).

So far, our efforts have been successful, and I am proud to say that South Korea is one of the two countries in the world (the other being the US) to have an editorial council consisting of local editors.

What are your duties as the President of KCSE?

The duties of the President of KCSE are to share latest news and information about academic journals and publishing and to manage 7 committees (Planning and Administration, Education and Training, Publication Ethics, Information and Publication, Manuscript Editing, External Affairs, and Awards). The overall aim of KCSE is to improve the quality of scientific journals published in Korea. As the President, I represent the KSCE officially at all internal and external events and purposes.

What kind of support is KCSE expecting from editors, the government, and other institutions in Korea?

Currently, KCSE is actively promoting a few projects:

1. Facilitating the exchange of information, resources, and cooperation among editors of science journals in Korea
2. Developing a set of common generic guidelines for improving the quality of science journals in Korea
3. Educating Korean academics about best practices in manuscript writing, reviewing, and editing
4. Acquainting people with local and international indexing services and databases of academic and scientific journals
5. Improving the understanding of publication ethics by sharing relevant resources with and imparting training to academics and publishing professionals in Korea

In order to carry out these projects effectively, it’s important to acquire the latest information constantly from similar international groups such as the Council of Science Editors, European Association of Science Editors, CrossRef, and Committee on Publication Ethics. Chairs of KCSE are also required to participate in diverse international academic conferences and educational programs and invite professional instructors from major international institutions to conduct certified educational programs.

All this requires a lot of hard work and resources. Projects of KCSE are supported by the annual membership fees of members and the registration fees paid by workshop and seminar attendees. But in order to be able to achieve all its goals efficiently, KSCE relies greatly on financial support from Korean government. We also request local journal editors to attend our informative programs regularly and to share their experience on publication. Their inputs will also help us consolidate the indexing databases of international journals and ensure better utilization of our capabilities.

Korea is known to face stiff competition from Japan and China in terms of scientific research and output. What barriers does Korea need to overcome to stay ahead in the global scientific research arena?

Korea needs to overcome several barriers to make advancements in global scientific research. First, we need to overcome the language barrier. It is essential for Korean researchers to achieve bi-lingual proficiency in Korean and English. The financial support and conditions that could support long-term creative research also need to improve, because currently, the lack of financial support and a good research environment are a barrier. Korea needs to invest in creative and fundamental research by setting short-term research results. This will provide a boost to the overall quality of scientific research in the country.

Lack of knowledge about best publication practices is another barrier to scientific development. Korean scientists need a lot training about best writing and publishing practices. They also need training on performing and writing original research. Statements made in academic manuscripts must be logically derived from facts. Nevertheless, many researchers are unable to distinguish between “facts” and “opinions” from the results of their research. So I would say that there are several barriers to be overcome to ensure that the Korean research community makes great strides at the international level.

Over the years, you have been on both sides of the journal publishing, as an author and editor. Based on your experience, what aspects of journal publishing do Korean researchers struggle with most? Do you have any words of advice for them?

"Publish or perish" has been the driving factor as well as pain point of Korean research. Most Korean researchers are victims of a competitive publishing system where the focus is on publishing a greater number of articles in high impact factor (IF) journals within a short time period. This is because the academic grading system is closely tied to publication output. In addition, most researchers want to publish their articles in SCI-indexed journals, and researchers in the pure/applied sciences are keen on publishing articles in prestigious journals like Nature and Science. However, according to a current research report (Nature 535, 210–211, 2016), 74.8% of Nature articles were cited below its IF of 38.1. Similarly, 75.5% of Science papers (IF=34.7) were cited fewer than 35 times in two years. Also according to a report (International Comparative Performance of the UK Research Base, 2013) in the UK, about 32% of published papers are not cited at all.

It is important for Korean researchers to ensure that instead of blindly trying to publish a manuscript in high-IF journals or trying to publish as many papers as they can, they need to consider the quality of their manuscripts as well as publish their research with the aim of communicating their research to a wide audience. That is my advice to Korean researchers – don’t become a victim of the publish-or-perish culture.

Unethical publication practices are also becoming increasingly common globally. To what extent do Korean academics know about unethical publication practices? If there is a gap in understanding, how can this gap be bridged?

I believe that given the competitive research scenario, everyone involved in research and publishing is aware of unethical publishing practices and the consequences of indulging in them. And given the increasing awareness of the fact that researchers are likely to unintentionally flout ethical guidelines when under pressure, many institutions and journals are taking steps to educate authors about the need and ways to publish ethically. This applies to Korean research, too. Each university in Korea has instituted "Research Ethics Guidelines". Each Korean journal also follows "Publishing Ethics Guidelines" that are made available to authors. In 2014, the Korean government published "Guidelines for Ensuring Best Ethical Practices in Research" in order to prevent research misconduct by sharing the fundamental principles of ethical research and by discussing the roles and responsibilities of researchers and universities in ensuring that ethical research and publishing practices are followed. In 2015, KCSE created and distributed a "Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Manual". This manual covers a wide range of research and publication ethics related aspects that should be taken into account in the fields of science and engineering.

Today, almost every university and research institute has a Research Integrity Committee and an Institutional Review Board to ensure that the best and ethical research publication practices are followed. However, plagiarism (including self-plagiarism and authorship related misconduct) still occur in some labs. This indicates the need to train and educate researchers about publication ethics related issues on an ongoing basis. Duplication of data also emerged as a major issue recently. The best way to identify plagiarism is to use a plagiarism detection software or a service that offers plagiarism checks. A number of institutions use CopyKiller, a plagiarism check software. Turnitin is another software that is being used globally. In Korea, the issue is that many institutions/publishers can only use software that has been integrated with their system. But I think that when authors submit their manuscripts, we should be able to run a plagiarism check using local and international software.

What are the main goals of KCSE in the coming year? How do you see the organization shaping up over the next few years?

2017 promises to be a busy year for KCSE. One of the plans of KCSE in 2017 is to conduct 10 workshops and forums for journal and manuscript editors. Journals are evolving digitally and editors are trying to internationalize journals. Local journal and manuscript editors should be aware of advanced systems of submission, review, editing, and distribution as well as about open access trends and policies. Korean researchers and publishing professionals also need to improve their understanding of authorship. The workshops and forums organized by KCSE will focus on providing essential information, knowledge, and training about these topics. 

Thank you for your time and for the great perspectives, Dr. Kim! We hope KCSE has a great year ahead!

On 7 February, the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) released data on the investments made by the OECD countries in research and development (R&D) in the year 2015. According to the report, Israel invested 4.25% of its gross domestic product (GDP) in R&D, which is the highest among all the countries in the world.

Until now South Korea held the top spot when it came to GDP investment in science and research. However, in 2016, it invested only 4.23%, which is marginally less than Israel. What helped Israel’s growth is the country’s government program called “Yozma” (which in Hebrew means “initiative”). This program attracted foreign investors and is according to OECD “the most successful and original programme in Israel’s relatively long history of innovation policy.”

South Korea, nonetheless, continues to lead when it comes to investing in basic research. OECD defines basic research as “research to obtain new knowledge without an immediately known application” and South Korea devotes 0.73% towards it compared to Israel’s 0.39%. It plans to increase this investment to 5% in 2017.

The OECD report also states that China, having increased its R&D expenditure from less than 1% in 2000 to 2.1% in 2015, is emerging as a strong economy. The U.S. continues to be a major player as its R&D expenditure share among the OECD countries amounts to nearly 40%. Another trend that the report highlights is that the balance between government- and industry-financed R&D is undergoing a shift. While the investment financed by the industry is picking up (61% in 2015), government-funded R&D is seeing a drop (from 31% to 27%).

Recommended reading:

Korea: An emerging Asian superpower in science, technology, and innovation

Interview with Dr. Sun Huh: Current challenges of the scientific publishing community in Korea

Interview with Dr. Sun Huh: Vital resources and tips for science editors of Korean journals

References

Israel edges out South Korea for top spot in research investment

How Israel is leading the world in R&D investment

Israel invests more in R&D per capita than any other country, study shows

Hindawi Publishing Corporation, which is one of the largest publishers of fully open access journals, announced its decision of ending its membership in the STM Association. According to Hindawi’s CEO Paul Peters, the reason behind this decision is “STM’s overwhelming focus on protecting business models of the past, rather than facilitating new models.” The decision seems to be based on Hindawi’s focus on making scientific knowledge openly accessible. Although the open access movement is sweeping academia, there continue to be several obstacles in the path such as economic sustainability and transparency among others.

STM Association is the leading global trade association for academic and professional publishers and has over 120 members in 21 countries, including learned societies, university presses, private companies, new startups, and established players. While the association has been supportive of the open access movement, Peters has mentioned that there is a resistance to embracing newer models: “Unfortunately, trade associations do not always embrace this role as facilitators of change, as they get trapped defending legacy models on which their members have long depended.”

Phill Jones, Director of Publishing Innovation at Digital Science, points out in an article on this issue that the STM Association works through consensus of its members and it might be difficult at times to take big decisions quickly. “It’s a big ship to steer and it sometimes takes longer than it should do for good ideas to get accepted as such,” Jones writes. He further states that Hindawi might look out to be associated with an organization that would provide greater support to their ideas or might even act as independent advocacy force.  

Although Peters has announced the decision to end the membership with the association, in his post he states that Hindawi would reestablish its ties with the STM Association if they display willingness to deal with the challenges of transitioning to open access. As Jones points out “Hindawi’s announcement should be seen less as a snub towards the STM Association, but more the sign of an evolving company carving out an independent position in a changing marketplace.”

References

Why Hindawi Left the STM Association and What It All Means for the Industry

Hindawi’s Decision to Leave the STM Association

Publisher Hindawi leaves the STM Association over its resistance to open access change