Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Science Editing : Science Editing

OPEN ACCESS
SEARCH
Search

Previous issues

Page Path
HOME > Browse articles > Previous issues
19 Previous issues
Filter
Filter
Article category
Keywords
Authors
Funded articles
Volume 10 February 2023
Prev issue Next issue
Editorials
Emergence of the metaverse and ChatGPT in journal publishing after the COVID-19 pandemic
Sun Huh
Sci Ed. 2023;10(1):1-4.   Published online February 16, 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.290
  • 4,789 View
  • 384 Download
  • 10 Web of Science
  • 11 Crossref
PDFSupplementary Material

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • Factors affecting accounting students’ misuse of chatgpt: an application of the fraud triangle theory
    Hashem Alshurafat, Mohannad Obeid Al Shbail, Allam Hamdan, Ahmad Al-Dmour, Waed Ensour
    Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting.2024; 22(2): 274.     CrossRef
  • Slow Writing with ChatGPT: Turning the Hype into a Right Way Forward
    Chitnarong Sirisathitkul
    Postdigital Science and Education.2024; 6(2): 431.     CrossRef
  • A scoping review of ChatGPT's role in healthcare education and research
    Shefaly Shorey, Citra Mattar, Travis Lanz-Brian Pereira, Mahesh Choolani
    Nurse Education Today.2024; 135: 106121.     CrossRef
  • Macao's academic book publishing industry: A SWOT and PEST analysis
    Li Jiagui, Johnny F. I. Lam
    Learned Publishing.2024; 37(2): 98.     CrossRef
  • AI tools can improve equity in science
    Violeta Berdejo-Espinola, Tatsuya Amano
    Science.2023; 379(6636): 991.     CrossRef
  • Can we trust AI chatbots’ answers about disease diagnosis and patient care?
    Sun Huh
    Journal of the Korean Medical Association.2023; 66(4): 218.     CrossRef
  • Can the Metaverse and Its Associated Digital Tools and Technologies Provide an Opportunity for Destinations to Address the Vulnerability of Overtourism?
    Nansy Kouroupi, Theodore Metaxas
    Tourism and Hospitality.2023; 4(2): 355.     CrossRef
  • Decoding ChatGPT: A taxonomy of existing research, current challenges, and possible future directions
    Shahab Saquib Sohail, Faiza Farhat, Yassine Himeur, Mohammad Nadeem, Dag Øivind Madsen, Yashbir Singh, Shadi Atalla, Wathiq Mansoor
    Journal of King Saud University - Computer and Information Sciences.2023; 35(8): 101675.     CrossRef
  • Universal skepticism of ChatGPT: a review of early literature on chat generative pre-trained transformer
    Casey Watters, Michal K. Lemanski
    Frontiers in Big Data.2023;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Application of artificial intelligence chatbots, including ChatGPT, in education, scholarly work, programming, and content generation and its prospects: a narrative review
    Tae Won Kim
    Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions.2023; 20: 38.     CrossRef
  • Editorial policies of Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions on the use of generative artificial intelligence in article writing and peer review
    Sun Huh
    Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions.2023; 20: 40.     CrossRef
Presidential address
Kihong Kim
Sci Ed. 2023;10(1):5-6.   Published online February 16, 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.291
  • 1,534 View
  • 211 Download
PDF
Reviews
Can an artificial intelligence chatbot be the author of a scholarly article?
Ju Yoen Lee
Sci Ed. 2023;10(1):7-12.   Published online February 16, 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.292
  • 6,206 View
  • 441 Download
  • 3 Web of Science
  • 10 Crossref
AbstractAbstract PDF
At the end of 2022, the appearance of ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot with amazing writing ability, caused a great sensation in academia. The chatbot turned out to be very capable, but also capable of deception, and the news broke that several researchers had listed the chatbot (including its earlier version) as co-authors of their academic papers. In response, Nature and Science expressed their position that this chatbot cannot be listed as an author in the papers they publish. Since an AI chatbot is not a human being, in the current legal system, the text automatically generated by an AI chatbot cannot be a copyrighted work; thus, an AI chatbot cannot be an author of a copyrighted work. Current AI chatbots such as ChatGPT are much more advanced than search engines in that they produce original text, but they still remain at the level of a search engine in that they cannot take responsibility for their writing. For this reason, they also cannot be authors from the perspective of research ethics.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • The ethics of ChatGPT – Exploring the ethical issues of an emerging technology
    Bernd Carsten Stahl, Damian Eke
    International Journal of Information Management.2024; 74: 102700.     CrossRef
  • ChatGPT in healthcare: A taxonomy and systematic review
    Jianning Li, Amin Dada, Behrus Puladi, Jens Kleesiek, Jan Egger
    Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine.2024; 245: 108013.     CrossRef
  • “Brave New World” or not?: A mixed-methods study of the relationship between second language writing learners’ perceptions of ChatGPT, behaviors of using ChatGPT, and writing proficiency
    Li Dong
    Current Psychology.2024; 43(21): 19481.     CrossRef
  • Evaluating the Influence of Artificial Intelligence on Scholarly Research: A Study Focused on Academics
    Tosin Ekundayo, Zafarullah Khan, Sabiha Nuzhat, Tze Wei Liew
    Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies.2024; 2024: 1.     CrossRef
  • Interaction with Artificial Intelligence as a Potential of Foreign Language Teaching Program in Graduate School
    T. V. Potemkina, Yu. A. Avdeeva, U. Yu. Ivanova
    Vysshee Obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia.2024; 33(5): 67.     CrossRef
  • Emergence of the metaverse and ChatGPT in journal publishing after the COVID-19 pandemic
    Sun Huh
    Science Editing.2023; 10(1): 1.     CrossRef
  • ChatGPT: Systematic Review, Applications, and Agenda for Multidisciplinary Research
    Harjit Singh, Avneet Singh
    Journal of Chinese Economic and Business Studies.2023; 21(2): 193.     CrossRef
  • ChatGPT: More Than a “Weapon of Mass Deception” Ethical Challenges and Responses from the Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence (HCAI) Perspective
    Alejo José G. Sison, Marco Tulio Daza, Roberto Gozalo-Brizuela, Eduardo C. Garrido-Merchán
    International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction.2023; : 1.     CrossRef
  • Universal skepticism of ChatGPT: a review of early literature on chat generative pre-trained transformer
    Casey Watters, Michal K. Lemanski
    Frontiers in Big Data.2023;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • ChatGPT, yabancı dil öğrencisinin güvenilir yapay zekâ sohbet arkadaşı mıdır?
    Şule ÇINAR YAĞCI, Tugba AYDIN YILDIZ
    RumeliDE Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi.2023; (37): 1315.     CrossRef
An algorithm for the selection of reporting guidelines
Soo Young Kim
Sci Ed. 2023;10(1):13-18.   Published online November 14, 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.287
  • 2,585 View
  • 274 Download
  • 2 Web of Science
  • 2 Crossref
AbstractAbstract PDF
A reporting guideline can be defined as “a checklist, flow diagram, or structured text to guide authors in reporting a specific type of research, developed using explicit methodology.” A reporting guideline outlines the bare minimum of information that must be presented in a research report in order to provide a transparent and understandable explanation of what was done and what was discovered. Many reporting guidelines have been developed, and it has become important to select the most appropriate reporting guideline for a manuscript. Herein, I propose an algorithm for the selection of reporting guidelines. This algorithm was developed based on the research design classification system and the content presented for major reporting guidelines through the EQUATOR (Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research) network. This algorithm asks 10 questions: “is it a protocol,” “is it secondary research,” “is it an in vivo animal study,” “is it qualitative research,” “is it economic evaluation research,” “is it a diagnostic accuracy study or prognostic research,” “is it quality improvement research,” “is it a non-comparative study,” “is it a comparative study between groups,” and “is it an experimental study?” According to the responses, 16 appropriate reporting guidelines are suggested. Using this algorithm will make it possible to select reporting guidelines rationally and transparently.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions received the Journal Impact Factor, 4.4 for the first time on June 28, 2023
    Sun Huh
    Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions.2023; 20: 21.     CrossRef
  • Why do editors of local nursing society journals strive to have their journals included in MEDLINE? A case study of the Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing
    Sun Huh
    Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing.2023; 29(3): 147.     CrossRef
The current state of graphical abstracts and how to create good graphical abstracts
Jieun Lee, Jeong-Ju Yoo
Sci Ed. 2023;10(1):19-26.   Published online February 16, 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.293
  • 5,031 View
  • 424 Download
  • 3 Web of Science
  • 2 Crossref
AbstractAbstract PDF
Graphical abstracts (GAs), also known as visual abstracts, are powerful tools for communicating complex information and ideas clearly and concisely. These visual representations aim to capture the essential findings and central message of a research study, allowing the audience to understand and remember its content quickly. This review article describes the current state of GAs, including their benefits, limitations, and future directions in the development of GAs. It also presents methods and tips for producing a GA. In Korea, more than 10 medical journals have introduced GAs from 2021 to 2022. The number of citations was higher in articles with GAs than in those without GAs in the top 10 gastroenterology journals. There are five types of GAs: conceptual diagrams, flowcharts, infographics, iconographic abstracts, and photograph-like illustrations. A limitation of the GA system is the absence of a universal standard for GAs. The key steps for creating a GA are as follows: (1) start by identifying the main message; (2) choose an appropriate visual style; (3) draw an easy-to-understand graphic; (4) use colors and other design elements; and (5) request feedback. Available tools that are useful for creating GAs include Microsoft PowerPoint, Mind the Graph, Biorender, and Canva. Another effective method is collaborating with experts. Artificial intelligence will soon be able to produce GAs more efficiently from raw data or manuscripts, which will help researchers draw GAs more easily. GAs have become a crucial art for researchers to master, and their use is expected to expand in the future.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • Your message in pictures – Adding a graphical abstract to your paper
    Péter Pongrácz, Irene Camerlink
    Applied Animal Behaviour Science.2023; 263: 105946.     CrossRef
  • Current status and demand for the advancement of Clinical Endoscopy: a survey-based descriptive study
    Tae Hoon Lee, Jimin Han, Gwang Ha Kim, Hyejin Han
    Science Editing.2023; 10(2): 135.     CrossRef
Original Articles
Impact and perceived value of the revolutionary advent of artificial intelligence in research and publishing among researchers: a survey-based descriptive study
Riya Thomas, Uttkarsha Bhosale, Kriti Shukla, Anupama Kapadia
Sci Ed. 2023;10(1):27-34.   Published online February 16, 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.294
  • 4,174 View
  • 361 Download
  • 2 Web of Science
  • 4 Crossref
AbstractAbstract PDFSupplementary Material
Purpose
This study was conducted to understand the perceptions and awareness of artificial intelligence (AI) in the academic publishing landscape.
Methods
We conducted a global survey entitled “Role and impact of AI on the future of academic publishing” to understand the impact of the AI wave in the scholarly publishing domain. This English-language survey was open to all researchers, authors, editors, publishers, and other stakeholders in the scholarly community. Conducted between August and October 2021, the survey received responses from around 212 universities across 54 countries.
Results
Out of 365 respondents, about 93% belonged to the age groups of 18–34 and 35–54 years. While 50% of the respondents selected plagiarism detection as the most widely known AI-based application, image recognition (42%), data analytics (40%), and language enhancement (39%) were some other known applications of AI. The respondents also expressed the opinion that the academic publishing landscape will significantly benefit from AI. However, the major challenges restraining the large-scale adoption of AI, as expressed by 93% of the respondents, were limited knowledge and expertise, as well as difficulties in integrating AI-based solutions into existing IT infrastructure.
Conclusion
The survey responses reflected the necessity of AI in research and publishing. This study suggests possible ways to support a smooth transition. This can be best achieved by educating and creating awareness to ease possible fears and hesitation, and to actualize the promising benefits of AI.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • Evaluating the Influence of Artificial Intelligence on Scholarly Research: A Study Focused on Academics
    Tosin Ekundayo, Zafarullah Khan, Sabiha Nuzhat, Tze Wei Liew
    Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies.2024; 2024: 1.     CrossRef
  • Publish or perish in the era of artificial intelligence: which way for the Kenyan research community?
    Stephen Oloo Ajwang, Anselimo Peters Ikoha
    Library Hi Tech News.2024;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Is Artificial Intelligence against/for Better Ethical Scientific Research?
    Huriye Yaşar, Vasif Karagücük
    Experimental and Applied Medical Science.2024;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • The impact of generative AI tools on researchers and research: Implications for academia in higher education
    Abdulrahman M. Al-Zahrani
    Innovations in Education and Teaching International.2023; : 1.     CrossRef
How open access diamond journals comply with industry standards exemplified by Plan S technical requirements
Sci Ed. 2023;10(1):35-44.   Published online February 16, 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.295
  • 4,540 View
  • 262 Download
  • 1 Web of Science
AbstractAbstract PDFSupplementary Material
Purpose
This study investigated how well current open access (OA) diamond journals in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and a survey conform to Plan S requirements, including licenses, peer review, author copyright, unique article identifiers, digital archiving, and machine-readable licenses.
Methods
Data obtained from DOAJ journals and surveyed journals from mid-June to mid-July 2020 were analyzed for a variety of Plan S requirements. The results were presented using descriptive statistics.
Results
Out of 1,465 journals that answered, 1,137 (77.0%) reported compliance with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) principles. The peer review types used by OA diamond journals were double-blind (6,339), blind (2,070), peer review (not otherwise specified, 1,879), open peer review (42), and editorial review (118) out of 10,449 DOAJ journals. An author copyright retention policy was adopted by 5,090 out of 10,448 OA diamond journals (48.7%) in DOAJ. Of the unique article identifiers, 5,702 (54.6%) were digital object identifiers, 58 (0.6%) were handles, and 14 (0.1%) were uniform resource names, while 4,675 (44.7%) used none. Out of 1,619 surveyed journals, the archiving solutions were national libraries (n=170, 10.5%), Portico (n=67, 4.1%), PubMed Central (n=15, 0.9%), PKP PN (n=91, 5.6%), LOCKSS (n=136, 8.4%), CLOCKSS (n=87, 5.4%), the National Computing Center for Higher Education (n=6, 0.3%), others (n=69, 4.3%), no policy (n=855, 52.8%), and no reply (n=123, 7.6%). Article-level metadata deposition was done by 8,145 out of 10,449 OA diamond journals (78.0%) in DOAJ.
Conclusion
OA diamond journals’ compliance with industry standards exemplified by the Plan S technical requirements was insufficient, except for the peer review type.
Changes in the absolute numbers and proportions of open access articles from 2000 to 2021 based on the Web of Science Core Collection: a bibliometric study
Jeong-Wook Seo
Sci Ed. 2023;10(1):45-56.   Published online February 16, 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.296
  • 3,300 View
  • 263 Download
AbstractAbstract PDFSupplementary Material
Purpose
The ultimate goal of current open access (OA) initiatives is for library services to use OA resources. This study aimed to assess the infrastructure for OA scholarly information services by tabulating the number and proportion of OA articles in a literature database.
Methods
We measured the absolute numbers and proportions of OA articles at different time points across various disciplines based on the Web of Science (WoS) database.
Results
The number (proportion) of available OA articles between 2000 and 2021 in the WoS database was 12 million (32.4%). The number (proportion) of indexed OA articles in 1 year was 0.15 million (14.6%) in 2000 and 1.5 million (48.0%) in 2021. The proportion of OA by subject categories in the cumulative data was the highest in the multidisciplinary category (2000–2021, 79%; 2021, 89%), high in natural sciences (2000–2021, 21%–46%; 2021, 41%–62%) and health and medicine (2000–2021, 37%–40%; 2021, 52%–60%), and low in social sciences and others (2000–2021, 23%–32%; 2021, 36%–44%), engineering (2000–2021, 17%–33%; 2021, 31%–39%) and humanities and arts (2000–2021, 11%–22%; 2021, 28%–38%).
Conclusion
Our study confirmed that increasingly many OA research papers have been published in the last 20 years, and the recent data show considerable promise for better services in the future. The proportions of OA articles differed among scholarly disciplines, and designing library services necessitates several considerations with regard to the customers’ demands, available OA resources, and strategic approaches to encourage the use of scholarly OA articles.
Comparison of the open access status and metrics of Scopus journals published in East Asian countries: a descriptive study
Eungi Kim, Da-Yeong Jeong
Sci Ed. 2023;10(1):57-63.   Published online February 16, 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.297
  • 2,378 View
  • 235 Download
  • 1 Web of Science
  • 1 Crossref
AbstractAbstract PDF
Purpose
The objective of this study was to compare Scopus journals published in East Asian countries—China, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan—in terms of their open access status and metrics and to explore the implications of those findings for South Korea.
Methods
To conduct this study, we selected four East Asian countries: China, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. We used journal information provided by SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) and Scopus. The following parameters were analyzed for journals published in East Asian countries: open access status, subject categories, quartiles, number of published documents, h-index, publishers, and citation rate.
Results
In all East Asian countries, numerous commercial publishers publish journals. One exception is Science Press, a Chinese government-sponsored publisher, which published the largest number of journals in the East Asian region. Japan had the highest median number of years covered by SJR. However, the proportion of Q1 journals in Japan was the lowest of the East Asian countries. South Korea had the highest proportion of Q1 journals in the country’s total journal production. Publishers in South Korea published more open access journals than any other East Asian country. Despite publishing a high proportion of prestigious journals, South Korea lagged behind China and Japan in the number of Scopus-indexed journals.
Conclusion
The findings indicate that South Korea has made significant progress in locally producing influential journals over the years. However, more efforts to publish international journals are required for South Korea to increase the number of Scopus journals.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • In-Depth Examination of Coverage Duration: Analyzing Years Covered and Skipped in Journal Indexing
    Eungi Kim
    Publications.2024; 12(2): 10.     CrossRef
Current status and demand for educational activities on publication ethics by academic organizations in Korea: a descriptive study
Yera Hur, Cheol-Heui Yun
Sci Ed. 2023;10(1):64-70.   Published online February 16, 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.298
  • 1,983 View
  • 221 Download
  • 1 Web of Science
  • 1 Crossref
AbstractAbstract PDFSupplementary Material
Purpose
This study aimed to examine the following overarching issues: the current status of research and publication ethics training conducted in Korean academic organizations and what needs to be done to reinforce research and publication ethics training.
Methods
A survey with 12 items was examined in a pilot survey, followed by a main survey that was distributed to 2,487 academic organizations. A second survey, which contained six additional questions, was dispatched to the same subjects. The results of each survey were analyzed by descriptive statistical analysis, content analysis, and comparative analysis.
Results
More than half of the academic organizations provided research and publication ethics training programs, with humanities and social sciences organizations giving more training than the others (χ2=11.190, df=2, P=0.004). The results showed that research and publication ethics training was held mostly once and less than an hour per year, mainly in a lecture format. No significant difference was found in the training content among academic fields. The academic organizations preferred case-based discussion training methods and wanted expert instructors who could give tailored training with examples.
Conclusion
A systematic training program that can develop ethics instructors tailored to specific academic fields and financial support from academic organizations can help scholarly editors resolve the apparent gap between the real and the ideal in ethics training, and ultimately to achieve the competency needed to train their own experts.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • Influence of artificial intelligence and chatbots on research integrity and publication ethics
    Payam Hosseinzadeh Kasani, Kee Hyun Cho, Jae-Won Jang, Cheol-Heui Yun
    Science Editing.2024; 11(1): 12.     CrossRef
Data sharing attitudes and practices of researchers in Korean government research institutes: a survey-based descriptive study
Jihyun Kim, Hyekyong Hwang, Youngim Jung, Sung-Nam Cho, Tae-Sul Seo
Sci Ed. 2023;10(1):71-77.   Published online February 16, 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.299
  • 2,326 View
  • 237 Download
  • 3 Web of Science
  • 3 Crossref
AbstractAbstract PDF
Purpose
This study explored to what extent and how researchers in five Korean government research institutes that implement research data management practices share their research data and investigated the challenges they perceive regarding data sharing.
Methods
The study collected survey data from 224 respondents by posting a link to a SurveyMonkey questionnaire on the homepage of each of the five research institutes from June 15 to 29, 2022. Descriptive statistical analyses were conducted.
Results
Among 148 respondents with data sharing experience, the majority had shared some or most of their data. Restricted data sharing within a project was more common than sharing data with outside researchers on request or making data publicly available. Sharing data directly with researchers who asked was the most common method of data sharing, while sharing data via institutional repositories was the second most common method. The most frequently cited factors impeding data sharing included the time and effort required to organize data, concerns about copyright or ownership of data, lack of recognition and reward, and concerns about data containing sensitive information.
Conclusion
Researchers need ongoing training and support on making decisions about access to data, which are nuanced rather than binary. Research institutes’ commitment to developing and maintaining institutional data repositories is also important to facilitate data sharing. To address barriers to data sharing, it is necessary to implement research data management services that help reduce effort and mitigate concerns about legal issues. Possible incentives for researchers who share data should also continue to be explored.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • Korean scholarly journal editors’ and publishers’ attitudes towards journal data sharing policies and data papers (2023): a survey-based descriptive study
    Hyun Jun Yi, Youngim Jung, Hyekyong Hwang, Sung-Nam Cho
    Science Editing.2023; 10(2): 141.     CrossRef
  • Data sharing and data governance in sub-Saharan Africa: Perspectives from researchers and scientists engaged in data-intensive research
    Siti M. Kabanda, Nezerith Cengiz, Kanshukan Rajaratnam, Bruce W. Watson, Qunita Brown, Tonya M. Esterhuizen, Keymanthri Moodley
    South African Journal of Science.2023;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Identifying key factors and actions: Initial steps in the Open Science Policy Design and Implementation Process
    Hanna Shmagun, Jangsup Shim, Jaesoo Kim, Kwang-Nam Choi, Charles Oppenheim
    Journal of Information Science.2023;[Epub]     CrossRef
Publishing trends of journals and articles in Journal Citation Reports during the COVID-19 pandemic: a descriptive study
Sang-Jun Kim, Kay Sook Park
Sci Ed. 2023;10(1):78-86.   Published online February 16, 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.300
  • 3,060 View
  • 265 Download
  • 1 Web of Science
  • 1 Crossref
AbstractAbstract PDFSupplementary Material
Purpose
This study aimed to investigate the changes that occurred in journal and article publishing during the noncontact period that started in 2020 due to COVID-19.
Methods
The integrated journal list in Journal Citation Reports (JCR) 2017–2021 and the search results of Web of Science were analyzed using pivot tables in Microsoft Excel. The articles, citations, impact factor (IF), publishers, open access (OA) status, and compound annual growth rate (CAGR) were investigated using the data.
Results
The CAGRs of articles, citations, and IFs in JCR journals increased throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Moreover, the increase in OA articles was accompanied by a decreasing share of subscription articles. The top 20 journals in JCR-SCIE (Science Citation Index Expanded), based on the number of articles, accepted OA policies and showed a strong influence, accounting for 7% to 9% of all articles. MDPI and Frontiers were OA publishers included among the top 10 publishers. Large publishers maintained their competitiveness through mergers and acquisitions with OA publishers. Due to the rapid distribution of OA and early access articles as part of the international response to overcome COVID-19, the CAGRs of citations and IFs increased more than that of articles, and the publication and use of journal articles have become more active.
Conclusion
The publication and use trends in JCR journals analyzed herein will provide useful information for researchers’ selection of journals for article submission, analyses of research performance, and libraries’ journal subscription contracts.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • Trends in research on ChatGPT and adoption-related issues discussed in articles: a narrative review
    Sang-Jun Kim
    Science Editing.2023; 11(1): 3.     CrossRef
Essays
Evolution of Scopus over the next decade, including research performance in South Korea
Wim J.N. Meester
Sci Ed. 2023;10(1):87-91.   Published online February 16, 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.301
  • 1,985 View
  • 216 Download
PDF
Format-free submission: gain for some, pain for others?
Michael Willis
Sci Ed. 2023;10(1):92-95.   Published online February 16, 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.302
  • 1,786 View
  • 200 Download
PDF
Looking back on my journey as the editor-in-chief of Animal Bioscience
Jong Kyu Ha
Sci Ed. 2023;10(1):96-99.   Published online December 12, 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.289
  • 1,811 View
  • 216 Download
PDF

Science Editing : Science Editing