ArticleJournal of Korean medical science2018
Impacts of the Journal Evaluation Program of the Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors (KAMJE) on the Quality of the Member Journals.
Article in Journal of Korean medical science, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Half-Centennial History of Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society : Midway from Domestic Journal to International Journal with Good Influence in Global Neurosurgery.Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society · 2022Article
- Comprehensive Approach to Open Access Publishing: Platforms and Tools.Journal of Korean medical science · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn 1997 the Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors (KAMJE) instituted a program to evaluate member journals. Journals that passed the initial evaluation were indexed in the KoreaMed. Here, we report changes in measures of quality of the KAMJE member journals during the last 20 years.
methodsQuality measures used in the study comprised 3 assessment categories; self-assessment by journal editors, assessment of the journals by KAMJE reviewers, and by Korean health science librarians. Each used detailed criteria to score the journals on a scale of 0 to 5 or 6 in multiple dimensions. We compared scores at baseline evaluation and those after 7 years for 129 journals and compared improvements in journals indexed vs. not-indexed by the Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded; SCIE).
resultsAmong 251 KAMJE member journals at the end of 2015, 227 passed evaluation criteria and 129 (56%) had both baseline and 7-year follow-up assessment data. The journals showed improvement overall (increase in median [interquartile range; IQR] score from baseline, 0.47 [0.64]; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-0.61;
conclusionThe KAMJE journal evaluation program successfully contributes improving the quality of the member journals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.