[Purposes] This study aims to explore a quantitative evaluation framework for the impact of data papers in the context of new scientific data publication patterns, implement an evaluation practice for the impact of data papers in China, and provide recommendations for the development of data paper publication and scientific data sharing and reuse. [Methods] Starting from a dual perspective of “scientific data attributes” and “academic paper attributes”, this study conceptualizes various attributes of data papers and visualizes their impact through six evaluation variables: format standardization, breadth of academic impact, depth of academic impact, social impact, scientific content, and data dissemination effectiveness. These variables are quantified into a series of specific measurement indicators, culminating in a comprehensive impact composite indicator designed based on a multidimensional quantitative indicator system. Using the Chinese science citation database (CSCD) and Elsevier’s Scopus database as data sources, this paper quantitatively evaluates the impact of data papers published by Chinese researchers based on the proposed evaluation methodology. [Findings] The findings reveal that current standards for defining data papers are not yet unified, the publication formats of data papers need to be standardized, and there is an imbalance in the publication of data papers in international and domestic data journals. There are significant differences in the volume of data papers published across various disciplines, with varying levels of emphasis on scientific data. [Conclusions] It is essential to enhance the promotion and application of standards related to the publication of data papers and to increase the support of science and technology policies for data paper publishing. This can be achieved by encouraging journals to create dedicated Data Paper Sections, collaborating with scientific data repositories, and establishing best practices for open data. Furthermore, the development of methods to evaluate and promote the expansion and improvement of data journals should be further pursued.

[Purposes] Based on a systematic survey and analysis of the research data policies in Chinese core journals, this study aims to bring forward several suggestions for optimizing the road map of domestic journal research data policies in the future. [Methods] The study mainly used web-based survey and content analysis methods. According to the list of well-known domestic core journal categories, a systematic survey was conducted on 3166 target journals. The results were interpreted and analyzed from multiple perspectives, including disciplinary distribution, distribution of supervisory organizations, policy tiers, requirements for data repositories, requirements for data availability statements, requirements for data submission stages, and the situation of research papers with shared data. [Findings] Among the 3166 target journals, only 392 journals have released data policies. According to the analysis, it can be found that there are several shortcomings in certain aspect, such as the top-level promotion and guidance of journal research data policies, the infrastructure that supporting the implementation of research data policies and so on. [Conclusions] To promote the high-quality development of research data in journals, it is necessary for multiple stakeholders, including publishing management organizations, publishers, and information service institutions, to work together to build a better system for the implementation of research data policies. Efforts should be made in several aspects, such as top-level guidelines, various types of infrastructure for research data in academic publishing, and information services construction.

[Purposes] The objective of this study is to construct a data policy framework for scientific and technological journals in China, and to provide reference for journals in different disciplines to formulate data policies. [Methods] Taking the data policy of the first issue of the China Excellence Action Plan as a sample, the grounded theory was used to extract the policy elements, and the value creation path was analyzed in combination with the data value chain theory, and the data policy framework was constructed. [Findings] The four key elements of data submission, data sharing, data citation and data acquisition were extracted, and the value creation path was revealed to be characterized by a dual-chain cycle with data policy as the core and synergy along the data production chain and data circulation chain, and a policy framework based on the data value chain was constructed. [Conclusions] This study provides a new idea for the formulation of data policy for scientific and technological journals, and journals of different disciplines can refine the policy priorities around the data flow and production link, and form a data policy for Chinese scientific and technological journals with disciplinary characteristics.

[Purposes] To investigate the data policies related to research articles of Chinese medical journals and provide a reference for standardizing the management and sharing of data related to research articles. [Methods] Web research and content analysis were used to retrieve and refine data policies from the official website of the medical journals listed in A Guide to the Core Journals of China(2023 edition). After excluding 3 journals with inaccessible websites, 253 journals were included as study subjects. Key elements of data policies were analyzed and extracted. [Findings] Among the surveyed journals, 26(10.3%) had established data policies. Most policies emphasized encouraging data sharing, but critical elements such as data availability statement were frequently absent. And some journals exhibited inconsistencies between repository recommendations, data citation practices, and related policies. [Conclusions] The development of data policies related to research articles in Chinese medical journals is still in its early stages. Journals should accelerate policy formulation, clarify requirements for critical elements like data availability statement, and align with domestic regulatory frameworks to promote effective sharing of data related to research articles.

[Purposes] To study the impact mechanism and development strategies of artificial intelligence (AI) on the dissemination of scientific journals, providing theoretical basis and practical guidance for enhancing the dissemination power of scientific journals in the era of AI. [Methods] Theoretical research and system analysis method are used to explore the positive role of artificial intelligence in the dissemination of scientific journals and the problems and challenges it brings, and corresponding countermeasures and suggestions are proposed. [Findings] Artificial intelligence effectively enhances the dissemination efficiency and effectiveness of scientific journals by enabling the content production process, transforming the dissemination mode, and upgrading user interaction methods; however, it also brings a series of problems and challenges to the dissemination of scientific journals, including content quality and intellectual property rights risks, technical dependence and ethical risks, dissemination effect alienation risks, and resource allocation and regulatory norm risks. [Conclusions] Scientific journals should pay high attention to the impact of artificial intelligence on their dissemination, establish sound policy mechanisms, actively respond to industry transformation, make full use of various media, strengthen platform tool construction, and cultivate new skills of editorial talents, so as to promote the greater role of artificial intelligence in enhancing the dissemination power of scientific journals.

[Purposes] It holds significant implications for the construction of scientific research integrity in the new era to clarify the internal relationship between generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) and predatory journals. [Methods] Based on literature review, online research, and logical analysis, this paper summarizes the behavior patterns and characteristic identification of predatory journals under the influence of GenAI. [Findings] In the academic publishing process, predatory journals exhibit three behavior patterns: low-quality content in academic creation, forged peer review in academic evaluation, and citation fraud in academic dissemination. Based on these patterns, this paper explores the technical application for predatory journals from four aspects: detecting predatory content, analyzing behavioral warnings, monitoring citation manipulations, and providing knowledge-based Q&A regarding predatory practices. [Conclusions] Identifying journal behavior patterns, enhancing technical detection and application, improving institutional frameworks, and strengthening multinational collaboration are important governance paths for predatory journals in the GenAI era.

[Purposes] To retrieve regulations or statements on ethical norms for AI-assisted writing in domestic academic journals, construct a theoretical framework for AI-assisted writing ethics in Chinese journals, and provide references for improving related practices. [Methods] Using CNKI, Wanfang and official wechat public accounts as data sources, 14 academic journal statements were selected, and finally 9 texts were selected for qualitative text analysis using Nvivo20 software. The theoretical model is constructed by combining the Risk Management Guidelines (ISO 31000:2018) and the WHO Guidelines on the Ethics and Governance of Artificial Intelligence in the Field of Health. [Findings] Guided by the six ethical principles of WHO, with authors, editors, and reviewers as the core subjects, and the academic publishing process as the main thread, a theoretical framework for AI-assisted writing ethics in China was established. [Conclusions] The framework of AI-assisted writing ethics provides theoretical support for the application of AI in academic writing, and provides a reference for the practical management of journals. In the future, further research is needed to improve the details of the framework and promote the healthy development of AI-assisted writing.

[Purposes] To analyze the copyright agreement of Shanghai biomedical OA journals and the issues related to copyright in the OA publishing process, and to figure out specific solutions, therefore to provide reference for the development of comprehensive copyright agreements and for adopting appropriate OA statements to OA journals in China. [Methods] This study retrieved and analyzed the member journals of the Committee of Biomedical Periodicals, Shanghai Society for Scientific and Technical Periodicals are the research objects. Based on the OA model of the journals, the copyright agreement and OA statement content of the OA journals are analyzed. The copyright agreement includes the name of the copyright agreement, the signing part of the agreement, the specific content of the copyright involved in the agreement, breach of contract liability and dispute resolution methods, digital publishing and database index-related information network dissemination rights, OA statements and creative commons (CC) license of the journal, and other specific details. [Findings] Among biomedical journals in Shanghai, bronze OA journals have the highest proportion (33.90%, 3837/112), but lack OA statements and CC agreements. In the copyright transfer contracts or OA statements of other types of OA journals, there are unclear copyright content, incorrect naming of rights, lack of provisions on information network dissemination rights, lack of breach of contract liability and dispute resolution methods, and copyright transfer agreements with only the author’s unilateral signature. In addition, the contradiction between the copyright agreement and the CC license mainly lies in the copyright of derivative works. The copyright agreement needs to be standardized. [Conclusions] OA journals should strengthen the management of the content of copyright agreement, improve copyright agreements and OA statements, and thus protect the interests of the publisher, the authors and the readers.

[Purposes] Addressing the current situation where the editorial committees of Chinese academic journals remain merely nominal entities failing to exercise substantive roles, this article aims to share the operational mechanism, effectiveness, and practical experience of the editorial committee responsibility system, providing references for Chinese academic journals to achieve genuine “scholar-led journal governance”. [Methods] Taking the operational model of the editorial committee responsibility system in the Journal of Software as a case study, this article introduces the formation and development of the editorial committee, the complete manuscript review process under the hierarchical editorial committee system, its operational effectiveness, and distinctive advantages. We also share the editorial office’s crucial roles in facilitating this scholar-driven model. [Findings] The editorial committee responsibility system demonstrates significant advantages in selecting high-quality submissions, improving review efficiency, promoting academic exchange, mitigating conflicts of interest, and preventing fraudulent peer review. Editorial offices play essential guiding, supportive, and supervisory roles throughout system implementation and committee development. [Conclusions] The relationship between academic journals and their editorial committees embodies service·co-construction·co-development. Chinese academic journals must adhere to their fundamental mission of serving academic communication and knowledge dissemination. Only through this commitment can they unite like-minded scholars to collaboratively build open and collaborative academic exchange platforms, drive disciplinary advancement and technological innovation, and foster a vibrant academic ecosystem.

[Purposes] The retraction of academic papers serves as a self-correction mechanism in the scientific community. Therefore, it is necessary to analyze the characteristics of retracted paper, so to reveal the history, current situation, and regular patterns of retraction, thereby providing targeted recommendations to enhance research integrity management for various academic communities. [Methods] Using global retracted paper records in Retraction Watch (RW), 32868 journal papers retracted between 1980 and 2023 were selected. The retracted reasons were divided into two major categories, “misconduct suspected” and “not misconduct”, with a total of 12 subcategories. Statistics were conducted from five aspects, including the time lag, reasons, disciplines, journals, and countries/regions of retraction. And the performance differences of the 12 subcategories of retraction reasons were analyzed in detail. [Findings] The number of retracted papers worldwide has consistently increased, with a notable rise in cases attributed to ‘misconduct suspected’. The average retraction lag in the past decade was approximately three years, with a shortening trend over the last five years. Basic life sciences (BLS) and health sciences (HSC) dominate as the most affected disciplines-‘hardest hit areas’ for retracted papers, while retracted papers, in business/technical (B/T) fields show increasing trends. The number of retracted papers from international collaborations is slightly lower than that from non-international collaborations. While the proportion of suspected misconduct papers is higher in developing countries than in developed ones. Among the 12 retracted reasons, the leading categories in the past three years are the authorial breach of trust, the editor/publisher’s breach of trust, and the forgery/tampering of papers, with significant differences observed in their distribution. [Conclusions] In order to effectively deal with the increasingly research misconducts, tailored management strategies should be formulated in the different disciplines, journals, and countries in combination with the characteristics of the retracted reasons. And we also need to optimize the method of monitoring, identifying and handling risky papers, to help the academic community to deal with dishonesty in scientific research.

[Purposes] To analyze the problems encountered in the scientific ethical review of clinical research in medical journals under the guidance of national regulations and industry norms, and try to come up with solutions. [Methods] The contents of scientific ethical review of clinical research in four regulations and norms were summarized, these were Measures for Ethical Review of Life Science and Medical Research Involving Human Beings promulgated by National Health Commission and other departments, Ethical Guidelines for Publication of Scientific Journals released by China Association for Science and Technology, Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals released by International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, CONSORT 2010 released by Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trails Working Group. The problems encountered in practical application were analyzed. [Findings] The content of scientific ethical review in the four regulations and norms mainly includes two parts: ethical principles and research methods. The review of ethical principles was well carried out in medical journals, but there was still a gap in taking research methods as the content of scientific ethical. In addition, there were still problems such as lack of multidisciplinary communication and how to conform to national conditions. [Conclusions] The authors suggested that under the organization of the society, a multidisciplinary working group should be formed to formulate a list of scientific ethical review for clinical research in medical journals, which will good for the the level of scientific ethical review and the high-level development of medical journals in China.

[Purposes] To enhance the quality of Chinese scientific journals and to promote their high-quality development, this paper conducts a quantitative analysis of the characteristics of high-quality Chinese scientific and technological journals and provides corresponding development strategies. [Methods] Based on journal indicators from CSTPCD and WoS databases and information on journal official websites, from the perspectives of discipline distribution, domestic academic influence, international citation, and journal platforms, analyze the development status of academic Chinese scientific journals selected from the “Excellence Action Plan for China’s STM Journals Phase II ”. [Findings] High quality Chinese scientific journals rank among the top in domestic discipline rankings, carry more papers produced by national major projects. They have a certain degree of international visibility, but their cluster advantages are not prominent. [Conclusions] Chinese scientific journals should further enhance their academic influence, expand the carrying capacity of excellent papers, and effectively support the development of national science and technology; Clarify the positioning of the journal; Strengthen the construction of journal publishing and dissemination platforms; At the national level, we will strengthen top-level design, enhance support for Chinese scientific and technological journals, and create an ecological environment suitable for the high-quality development of Chinese scientific and technological journals.

[Purposes] To solve the interference of low-quality and random citations in the calculation of disruption index, the journal disruptive index (JDI) was optimized from the perspective of citation data source, and the innovative evaluation effect of the optimized index was verified and analyzed. [Methods] In this study, 112 comprehensive internal medicine journals and 82 Nature Index journals were used as the object of study and source of citation data, respectively. JDI, JIDI, and JIDI-N were calculated separately for each journal and compared with the peer-reviewed indicators of the H1Connect (H1C, formerly F1000) database. [Findings] There is a positive correlation among the innovation evaluation indicators, impact indicators and peer review indicators. Journals in the top rank of impact indicators are usually in the top rank of innovation indicators, but the average difference between innovation indicator ranking and impact indicator ranking of journals included in the study is close to 20, which shows that innovation evaluation and impact evaluation are both unified and different. Compared with peer review indicators, JIDI-N has a higher degree of correlation. [Conclusions] Optimizing JDI at the level of citation data source helps to improve the evaluation effect of disruptive innovation in the scientific and technical journals.

[Purposes] On the basis of exploring the progress and experiences in the construction of academic journal evaluation systems in typical non-English-speaking countries, efforts should be made to establish a scientific evaluation system, promote the high-quality development of local academic journals, and ensure the stability and security of domestic scientific research. [Methods] Based on the distribution of non-English journals in Scopus, the research identified Spain, Russia, Germany, France, Brazil, and Italy as typical non-English-speaking countries. Using methods such as online research and case analysis, the research analyzed the main academic journal evaluation systems in these countries from the perspectives of evaluation purposes, evaluation subjects, evaluation objects, and evaluation criteria. [Findings] The experiences of building academic journal evaluation systems in typical non-English-speaking countries include: developing domestic evaluation standards tailored to application scenarios, establishing collaborative evaluation networks with multiple stakeholders, refining evaluation objects from journals to individual papers, and appropriately managing relationships with international citation databases. [Conclusions] Non-English-speaking countries have fully recognized the significance of developing localized academic journal evaluation systems in promoting the growth of their own academic publishing and scientific research innovation ecosystems. Through practical implementation, these countries have accumulated valuable experience, which offers important insights for improving China’s academic journal evaluation system.