Purpose: The “Principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing” are of increasing importance in an open science environment as a way to increase the transparency and quality of academic society journals. However, little previous research has investigated the application of this new guideline in practice. The aim of this study was to investigate the degree to which this guideline is being applied by Korean academic society– published journals listed in Journal Citation Reports. Methods: The researchers investigated the homepages of 59 Korean academic society– published journals to evaluate whether they had adopted the 33 items listed in the guideline. Based on the information available on the journals’ homepages, each item was classified as ‘yes’ or ‘no’ within the four categories of basic journal information, publication ethics, copyright and archiving information, and profit model. Results: The basic journal information category was generally well-practiced, with the exceptions of the peer review process, readership, and author fees. The copyright and licensing information category was also well-practiced, with the exception of policies on posting accepted articles with third parties and archiving items. However, most items in the publication ethics category were not well practiced, with the exception of authorship and intellectual property. All items in the profit model category were infrequently implemented. Conclusion: These findings serve as a good indicator for Korean journal editors of areas for improvement. It may be helpful to review journals’ publication policies and homepages to comply with international publishing standards.

中文翻译：

---

Journal Citation Reports 中列出的韩国学术协会出版期刊中“学术出版的透明度和最佳实践原则”的合规性

目的：“学术出版的透明度原则和最佳实践”在开放科学环境中越来越重要，作为提高学术团体期刊透明度和质量的一种方式。然而，之前的研究很少调查这一新指南在实践中的应用。本研究的目的是调查韩国学术团体在 Journal Citation Reports 中列出的出版期刊应用该指南的程度。方法：研究人员调查了 59 家韩国学术协会出版的期刊的主页，以评估他们是否采用了指南中列出的 33 项。根据期刊主页上提供的信息，在基本期刊信息、出版道德、版权和存档信息，以及盈利模式。结果：除了同行评审过程、读者人数和作者费用外，基本期刊信息类别普遍得到很好的实践。版权和许可信息类别也得到了很好的实践，但有关向第三方发布已接受文章和存档项目的政策除外。然而，出版伦理类别中的大多数项目都没有得到很好的实践，除了作者身份和知识产权。盈利模式类别中的所有项目都很少实施。结论：这些发现可以作为韩国期刊编辑改进领域的良好指标。查看期刊的出版政策和主页以符合国际出版标准可能会有所帮助。