A Scopus-Based Analysis of Publication Activity in Kazakhstan from 2010 to 2015: Positive Trends, Concerns, and Possible Solutions

Marlen Yessirkepov,Bekaidar Nurmashev,Mariya Anartayeva 대한의학회 2015 Journal of Korean medical science Vol.30 No.12

The article analyzes the publication activity of scientific authors from Kazakhstan based on Scopus and SCImago Journal & Country Rank data from 2010 to 2015. The number of indexed multidisciplinary and medical articles from the country has been steadily growing from 2011 onward and this can be due to the adoption of the new Law on Science in that year. Several regulatory legal acts have been issued in recent years aimed at improving the quality of local journals and the international recognition of academic degrees and titles. Publication activity of scientific authors from Kazakhstan was found to be higher than that from other countries in the Central Asian region. However, there are still many unresolved issues related to the English language barrier, lack of indexing status of local journals, and poor topical education on science writing and editing. As such, the number of articles published in ‘predatory’ journals remains sizable, and there are concerns over authors’ negligence and plagiarism. The global solution to the discussed problems may be achieved by educating researchers, authors, reviewers, and editors.

Peer Reviewers in Central Asia: Publons Based Analysis

Ahmed Sakir,Yessirkepov Marlen 대한의학회 2021 Journal of Korean medical science Vol.36 No.25

Background: The five Central Asian republics comprise of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. Their research and publication activities are gradually improving but there is limited data on how good their peer reviewing practices are. Methods: We have use the Publons database to extract information on the reviewers registered including the number of verified review, Publons award winners, and top universities in the domain of peer reviewing. This has been analysed overall and country wise. Results: Of 15,764 researchers registered on Publons, only 370 (11.7%) have verified records of peer-reviewing. There are 8 Publons award winners. There is great heterogeneity in the number of active reviewers across the five countries. Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan account for more than 90% of verified reviewers. Only Kazakhstan has more than 100 active reviewers and 6 Publons award recipients. Amongst the top 20 reviewers from Central Asia, half of them are from the Nazarbayev University, Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan. Three countries have less than 10 universities registered on Publons. Conclusion: Central Asia has a good number of peer reviewers on Publons though only a minority of researchers are involved in peer reviewing. However, the heterogeneity between the nations can be best dealt with by promoting awareness and international networking including e-learning and mentoring programs.

YouTube as a Source of Information on Public Health Ethics

Zhaksylyk Alikhan,Yessirkepov Marlen,Akyol Ahmet,Kocyigit Burhan Fatih 대한의학회 2024 Journal of Korean medical science Vol.39 No.7

Background: Public health ethics (PHE) is a dynamic area within bioethics that addresses the complex moral implications of public health measures in the face of growing health threats. YouTube is a powerful and widely used platform for disseminating health-related information. The primary objective of this study is to assess videos related to PHE on YouTube. The aim is to gauge the extent of misinformation in collecting PHE videos on the platform. Methods: On October 25, 2023, a thorough investigation on YouTube was undertaken, employing pre-determined search phrases involving ‘public health,’ ‘healthcare,’ ‘health services administration,’ and ‘health policy and ethics.’ The research encompassed a total of 137 videos that were selected according to strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. The videos were evaluated using the Global Quality Scale to measure quality and the modified DISCERN tool to evaluate reliability. The researchers identified video sources and compared several video attributes across different quality groups. Results: A total of 137 videos were analyzed, and 65 (47.45%) were classified as high quality, 52 (37.23%) as moderate quality, and 21 (15.32%) as low quality. In high-quality videos, academic, government, physician, and university-hospital sources predominated, whereas Internet users and news sources were connected with low-quality videos. Significant differences in DISCERN score, per day views, likes, and comments were seen across the quality groups (P = 0.001 for views per day and P = 0.001 for other characteristics). According to the findings, low-quality videos had higher median values for daily views, likes, and comments. Conclusion: Although nearly half of the videos were high-quality, low-quality videos attracted greater attention. Critical contributors to high-quality videos included academic, government, physician, and university-hospital sources. The findings highlight the importance of quality control methods on social media platforms and strategies to direct users to trustworthy health information. Authors should prioritize appropriate citations and evaluate YouTube and other comparable platforms for potential promotional low-quality information.

Statement on Publication Ethics for Editors and Publishers

Armen Yuri Gasparyan,Marlen Yessirkepov,Alexander A. Voronov,Sergey V. Gorin,Anna M. Koroleva,George D. Kitas 대한의학회 2016 Journal of Korean medical science Vol.31 No.9

The digitization and related developments in journal editing and publishing necessitate increasing the awareness of all stakeholders of science communication in the emerging global problems and possible solutions. Journal editors and publishers are frequently encountered with the fast-growing problems of authorship, conflicts of interest, peer review, research misconduct, unethical citations, and inappropriate journal impact metrics. While the number of erroneous and unethical research papers and wasteful, or ‘predatory’, journals is increasing exponentially, responsible editors are urged to ‘clean’ the literature by correcting or retracting related articles. Indexers are advised to implement measures for accepting truly influential and ethical journals and delisting sources with predatory publishing practices. Updating knowledge and skills of authors, editors and publishers, developing and endorsing recommendations of global editorial associations, and (re) drafting journal instructions can be viewed as potential tools for improving ethics of academic journals. The aim of this Statement is to increase awareness of all stakeholders of science communication of the emerging ethical issues in journal editing and publishing and initiate a campaign of upgrading and enforcing related journal instructions.

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 대한의학회 2015 Journal of Korean medical science Vol.30 No.11

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.

Research Integrity: Where We Are and Where We Are Heading

Zhaksylyk Alikhan,Zimba Olena,Yessirkepov Marlen,Kocyigit Burhan Fatih 대한의학회 2023 Journal of Korean medical science Vol.38 No.47

The concept of research integrity (RI) refers to a set of moral and ethical standards that serve as the foundation for the execution of research activities. Integrity in research is the incorporation of principles of honesty, transparency, and respect for ethical standards and norms throughout all stages of the research endeavor, encompassing study design, data collecting, analysis, reporting, and publishing. The preservation of RI is of utmost importance to uphold the credibility and amplify the influence of scientific research while also preventing and dealing with instances of scientific misconduct. Researchers, institutions, journals, and readers share responsibilities for preserving RI. Researchers must adhere to the highest ethical standards. Institutions have a role in establishing an atmosphere that supports integrity ideals while also providing useful guidance, instruction, and assistance to researchers. Editors and reviewers act as protectors, upholding quality and ethical standards in the dissemination of research results through publishing. Readers play a key role in the detection and reporting of fraudulent activity by critically evaluating content. The struggle against scientific misconduct has multiple dimensions and is continuous. It requires a collaborative effort and adherence to the principles of honesty, transparency, and rigorous science. By supporting a culture of RI, the scientific community may preserve its core principles and continue to contribute appropriately to society’s well-being. It not only aids present research but also lays the foundation for future scientific advancements.

Specialist Bibliographic Databases

Armen Yuri Gasparyan,Marlen Yessirkepov,Alexander A. Voronov,Vladimir I. Trukhachev,Elena I. Kostyukova,Alexey N. Gerasimov,George D. Kitas 대한의학회 2016 Journal of Korean medical science Vol.31 No.5

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.

Publishing Ethics and Predatory Practices: A Dilemma for All Stakeholders of Science Communication

Armen Yuri Gasparyan,Marlen Yessirkepov,Svetlana N. Diyanova,George D. Kitas 대한의학회 2015 Journal of Korean medical science Vol.30 No.8

Publishing scholarly articles in traditional and newly-launched journals is a responsible task, requiring diligence from authors, reviewers, editors, and publishers. The current generation of scientific authors has ample opportunities for publicizing their research. However, they have to selectively target journals and publish in compliance with the established norms of publishing ethics. Over the past few years, numerous illegitimate or predatory journals have emerged in most fields of science. By exploiting gold Open Access publishing, these journals paved the way for low-quality articles that threatened to change the landscape of evidence-based science. Authors, reviewers, editors, established publishers, and learned associations should be informed about predatory publishing practices and contribute to the trustworthiness of scholarly publications. In line with this, there have been several attempts to distinguish legitimate and illegitimate journals by blacklisting unethical journals (the Jeffrey Beall’s list), issuing a statement on transparency and best publishing practices (the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association’s and other global organizations’ draft document), and tightening the indexing criteria by the Directory of Open Access Journals. None of these measures alone turned to be sufficient. All stakeholders of science communication should be aware of multiple facets of unethical practices and publish well-checked and evidence-based articles.

Plagiarism in Non-Anglophone Countries: a Cross-sectional Survey of Researchers and Journal Editors

Gupta Latika,Tariq Javeria,Yessirkepov Marlen,Zimba Olena,Misra Durga Prasanna,Agarwal Vikas,Gasparyan Armen Yuri 대한의학회 2021 Journal of Korean medical science Vol.36 No.39

Background: Plagiarism is one of the most common violation of publication ethics, and it still remains an area with several misconceptions and uncertainties. Methods: This online cross-sectional survey was conducted to analyze plagiarism perceptions among researchers and journal editors, particularly from non-Anglophone countries. Results: Among 211 respondents (mean age 40 years; M:F, 0.85:1), 26 were scholarly journal editors and 70 were reviewers with a large representation from India (50, 24%), Turkey (28, 13%), Kazakhstan (25, 12%) and Ukraine (24, 11%). Rigid and outdated pre- and post-graduate education was considered as the origin of plagiarism by 63% of respondents. Paraphragiarism was the most commonly encountered type of plagiarism (145, 69%). Students (150, 71%), nonAnglophone researchers with poor English writing skills (117, 55%), and agents of commercial editing agencies (126, 60%) were thought to be prone to plagiarize. There was a significant disagreement on the legitimacy of text copying in scholarly articles, permitted plagiarism limit, and plagiarized text in methods section. More than half (165, 78%) recommended specifically designed courses for plagiarism detection and prevention, and 94.7% (200) thought that social media platforms may be deployed to educate and notify about plagiarism. Conclusion: Great variation exists in the understanding of plagiarism, potentially contributing to unethical publications and even retractions. Bridging the knowledge gap by arranging topical education and widely employing advanced anti-plagiarism software address this unmet need.

Article-Level Metrics

Gasparyan Armen Yuri,Yessirkepov Marlen,Voronov Alexander A.,Maksaev Artur A.,Kitas George D. 대한의학회 2021 Journal of Korean medical science Vol.36 No.11

In the era of digitization and Open Access, article-level metrics are increasingly employed to distinguish influential research works and adjust research management strategies. Tagging individual articles with digital object identifiers allows exposing them to numerous channels of scholarly communication and quantifying related activities. The aim of this article was to overview currently available article-level metrics and highlight their advantages and limitations. Article views and downloads, citations, and social media metrics are increasingly employed by publishers to move away from the dominance and inappropriate use of journal metrics. Quantitative article metrics are complementary to one another and often require qualitative expert evaluations. Expert evaluations may help to avoid manipulations with indiscriminate social media activities that artificially boost altmetrics. Values of article metrics should be interpreted in view of confounders such as patterns of citation and social media activities across countries and academic disciplines.