Creating a National Open Access Journal System: The Korean Journal Publishing Service
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper introduces the Korean Journal Publishing Service (KPubS), a full-cycle open access (OA) publication model and platform prototype for distributing research outcomes in science, technology, engineering, and medicine (STEM) in South Korea. The model comprises four phases: creation, digital archiving, Web service, and circulation. The publication platform developed from this model enables usage of different systems for manuscript management and is connected to a workbench available for full-text XML semi-automatic conversion and a digital object identifier, or DOI, service. Responsive Web technology is applied to enable an adaptive approach for various devices such as desktops, tablets, and mobile phones. With new information technologies emerging in the electronic environment, and users' needs becoming more diversified, there is greater demand for more effort from publishers and editors who work for academic journal publication services. Moreover, it is important in OA (especially in the context of scholarly communication) to raise scientists' awareness of the benefits of OA publishing, which include improved knowledge dissemination, visibility, and speed of publishing—all of which may lead to an increased impact of outcomes in STEM research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.024 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".