Science Editing

From articles published in Science Editing during the past two years (2022 ~ ).

Training Material

The evolution, benefits, and challenges of preprints and their interaction with journals: Pippa Smart; Sci Ed. 2022;9(1):79-84. Published online February 20, 2022; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.269

7,384 View
368 Download
11 Web of Science
17 Crossref

This article presents the growth and development of preprints to help authors, editors, and publishers understand and adopt appropriate strategies for incorporating preprints within their scholarly communication strategies. The article considers: preprint history and evolution, integration of preprints and journals, and the benefits and disadvantages, and challenges that preprints offer. The article discusses the two largest and most established preprint servers, arXiv.org (established in 1991) and SSRN (1994), the OSF (Open Science Foundation) initiative that supported preprint growth (2010), bioRxiv (2013), and medRxiv (2019). It then discusses six different levels of acceptance of preprints within journals: uneasy relationship, acceptance of preprint articles, encouraging authors to preprint their articles, active participation with preprints, submerger by reviewing preprints, and finally merger and overlay models. It is notable that most journals now accept submissions that have been posted as preprints. The benefits of preprints include fast circulation, priority publication, increased visibility, community feedback, and contribution to open science. Disadvantages include information overload, inadequate quality assurance, citation dilution, information manipulation and inflation of results. As preprints become mainstream it is likely that they will benefit authors but disadvantage publishers and journals. Authors are encouraged to preprint their own articles but to be cautious about using preprints as the basis for their own research. Editors are encouraged to develop preprint policies and be aware that double-blind review is not possible with preprinting of articles and that allowing citations to preprints is to be encouraged. In conclusion, journal-related stakeholders should consider preprints as an unavoidable development, taking into consideration both the benefits and disadvantages.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Seeing the forest for the trees and the changing seasons in the vast land of scholarly publishing
Soo Jung Shin
Science Editing.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
To preprint or not to preprint: A global researcher survey
Rong Ni, Ludo Waltman
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology.2024; 75(6): 749. CrossRef
Open publishing of public health research in Africa: an exploratory investigation of the barriers and solutions
Pasipanodya Ian Machingura Ruredzo, Dominic Dankwah Agyei, Modibo Sangare, Richard F. Heller
Insights the UKSG journal.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Exploring the current dynamics of preprints
Raj Rajeshwar Malinda, Dipika Mishra, Ruchika Bajaj, Alin Khaliduzzaman
Current Medical Research and Opinion.2024; 40(6): 1047. CrossRef
Publishing Embargoes and Versions of Preprints: Impact on the Dissemination of Information
Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, Chun-Kai (Karl) Huang, Maryna Nazarovets
Open Information Science.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Accelerated acceptance time for preprint submissions: a comparative analysis based on PubMed
Dan Tian, Xin Liu, Jiang Li
Scientometrics.2024; 129(7): 3787. CrossRef
Are Preprints a Threat to the Credibility and Quality of Artificial Intelligence Literature in the ChatGPT Era? A Scoping Review and Qualitative Study
Michael Agyemang Adarkwah, A. Y. M. Atiquil Islam, Käthe Schneider, Rose Luckin, Michael Thomas, Jonathan Michael Spector
International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction.2024; : 1. CrossRef
A perspective on the Center for Open Science (COS) preprint servers
J. A. Teixeira da Silva
Science Editor and Publisher.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Recent Issues in Medical Journal Publishing and Editing Policies: Adoption of Artificial Intelligence, Preprints, Open Peer Review, Model Text Recycling Policies, Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing 4th Version, and Country Names in Titles
Sun Huh
Neurointervention.2023; 18(1): 2. CrossRef
Most Preprint Servers Allow the Publication of Opinion Papers
Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, Serhii Nazarovets
Open Information Science.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
The rise of preprints in earth sciences
Olivier Pourret, Daniel Enrique Ibarra
F1000Research.2023; 12: 561. CrossRef
The rise of preprints in earth sciences
Olivier Pourret, Daniel Enrique Ibarra
F1000Research.2023; 12: 561. CrossRef
Sharing the wealth: a proposal for discipline-based repositories of shared educational resources
Ellen Austin
Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education.2023; 27(4): 131. CrossRef
The experiences of COVID-19 preprint authors: a survey of researchers about publishing and receiving feedback on their work during the pandemic
Narmin Rzayeva, Susana Oliveira Henriques, Stephen Pinfield, Ludo Waltman
PeerJ.2023; 11: e15864. CrossRef
An attempt to explain the partial 'silent' withdrawal or retraction of a SAGE Advance preprint
Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva
Publishing Research.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
The use and acceptability of preprints in health and social care settings: A scoping review
Amanda Jane Blatch-Jones, Alejandra Recio Saucedo, Beth Giddins, Robin Haunschild
PLOS ONE.2023; 18(9): e0291627. CrossRef
Dissemination of Registered COVID-19 Clinical Trials (DIRECCT): a cross-sectional study
Maia Salholz-Hillel, Molly Pugh-Jones, Nicole Hildebrand, Tjada A. Schult, Johannes Schwietering, Peter Grabitz, Benjamin Gregory Carlisle, Ben Goldacre, Daniel Strech, Nicholas J. DeVito
BMC Medicine.2023;[Epub] CrossRef

Editorial

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

5,394 View
390 Download
10 Web of Science
12 Crossref

PDF Supplementary 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
Examining the Effect of the Fraud Triangle on the Tendency to Commit Research Fraud while Using GPT Chat in Accounting Students and Graduates
Rafik Baghomian, Hossein Rajabdorri
journal of Value & Behavioral Accounting.2024; 8(16): 47. 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 on the use of generative artificial intelligence in article writing and peer-review in the Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions
Sun Huh
Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions.2023; 20: 40. CrossRef

Review

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

7,061 View
462 Download
4 Web of Science
11 Crossref

Abstract 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

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.2024; 40(17): 4853. CrossRef
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;[Epub] 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
Did ChatGPT ask or agree to be a (co)author? ChatGPT authorship reflects the wider problem of inappropriate authorship practices
Bor Luen Tang
Science Editing.2024; 11(2): 93. 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
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

Editorial

Metaverse in journal publishing: Kihong Kim; Sci Ed. 2022;9(1):1-2. Published online February 20, 2022; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.256

6,969 View
238 Download
3 Web of Science
5 Crossref

PDF

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Exploring Metaverse Literacy: Immersive Technologies in Library Environments
A. Subaveerapandiyan, Arunima Baiju, Naved Ahmad, Manoj Kumar Verma, Priyanka Sinha
Journal of Web Librarianship.2024; 18(2): 39. CrossRef
Facing the challenges of metaverse: a systematic literature review from Social Sciences and Marketing and Communication
Verónica Crespo-Pereira, Eva Sánchez-Amboage, Matías Membiela-Pollán
El Profesional de la información.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Emergence of the metaverse and ChatGPT in journal publishing after the COVID-19 pandemic
Sun Huh
Science Editing.2023; 10(1): 1. CrossRef
Advances in Metaverse Investigation: Streams of Research and Future Agenda
Mariapina Trunfio, Simona Rossi
Virtual Worlds.2022; 1(2): 103. CrossRef
What the Literature on Medicine, Nursing, Public Health, Midwifery, and Dentistry Reveals: An Overview of the Rapidly Approaching Metaverse
Muhammet DAMAR
Journal of Metaverse.2022; 2(2): 62. 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

4,846 View
388 Download
2 Web of Science
4 Crossref

Abstract PDF Supplementary 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

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.2024; 61(5): 1029. 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;[Epub] 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

Charting variety, scope, and impact of open access diamond journals in various disciplines and regions: a survey-based observational study: Sci Ed. 2022;9(2):120-135. Published online August 19, 2022; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.277

4,916 View
302 Download
4 Web of Science
4 Crossref

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material

Purpose
The variety, scope, and impact of open access (OA) diamond journals across disciplines and regions from July 22 to September 11, 2020 were charted to characterize the current OA diamond landscape.
Methods
The total number of diamond journals was estimated, including those outside the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). The distribution across regions, disciplines, and publisher types was described. The scope of journals in terms of authorship and readership was investigated. Information was collected on linguistic diversity, journal dynamics and life cycle, and their visibility in scholarly databases.
Results
The number of OA diamond journals is estimated to be 29,000. OA diamond journals are estimated to publish 356,000 articles per year. The OA diamond sector is diverse in terms of regions (45% in Europe, 25% in Latin America, 16% in Asia, and 5% in the United States/Canada) and disciplines (60% humanities and social sciences, 22% sciences, and 17% medicine). More than 70% of OA diamond journals are published by university-owned publishers, including university presses. The majority of OA diamond journals are small, publishing fewer than 25 articles a year. English (1,210), Spanish (492), and French (342) are the most common languages of the main texts. Out of 1,619 journals, 1,025 (63.3%) are indexed in DOAJ, 492 (30.4%) in Scopus, and 321 (19.8%) in Web of Science.
Conclusion
The patterns and trends reported herein provide insights into the diversity and importance of the OA diamond journal landscape and the accompanying opportunities and challenges in supporting this publishing model.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Journal metrics, document network, and conceptual and social structures of the Korean Journal of Anesthesiology from 2017 to July 2022: a bibliometric study
Sun Huh
Korean Journal of Anesthesiology.2023; 76(1): 3. CrossRef
How open access diamond journals comply with industry standards exemplified by Plan S technical requirements

Science Editing.2023; 10(1): 35. CrossRef
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
Plan S: estimating future developments
Johan Rooryck
Science Editing.2022; 9(2): 149. CrossRef

Review

Trends in research on ChatGPT and adoption-related issues discussed in articles: a narrative review: Sang-Jun Kim; Sci Ed. 2024;11(1):3-11. Published online December 18, 2023; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.321

8,109 View
282 Download
3 Web of Science
3 Crossref

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material

This review aims to provide guidance for those contemplating the use of ChatGPT, by sharing research trends and evaluation results discussed in various articles. For an objective and quantitative analysis, 1,105 articles published over a 7-month period, from December 2022 to June 2023, following the release of ChatGPT were collected. These articles were sourced from PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Additionally, 140 research articles were selected, including archived preprints and Korean articles, to evaluate the performance of ChatGPT. The analysis of research trends revealed that related communities are rapidly and actively responding: the educational community is redefining its directions, the copyright and patent community is monitoring lawsuits related to artificial intelligence creations, the government is establishing laws to regulate and prevent potential harm, the journal publishing community is setting standards for whether artificial intelligence can be considered an author, and the medical community is publishing numerous articles exploring the potential of ChatGPT to support medical experts. A comparative analysis of research articles on ChatGPT’s performance suggests that it could serve as a valuable assistant in human intellectual activities and academic processes. However, its practical application requires careful consideration to overcome certain limitations. Both the general public and researchers should assess the adoption of ChatGPT based on accurate information, such as that provided in this review.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

The emergence of generative artificial intelligence platforms in 2023, journal metrics, appreciation to reviewers and volunteers, and obituary
Sun Huh
Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions.2024; 21: 9. CrossRef
Explosive increase and decrease in articles, citations, impact factor, and immediacy index during the COVID-19 pandemic: a bibliometric study
Sang-Jun Kim
Science Editing.2024; 11(2): 107. CrossRef
Research ethics and issues regarding the use of ChatGPT-like artificial intelligence platforms by authors and reviewers: a narrative review
Sang-Jun Kim
Science Editing.2024; 11(2): 96. CrossRef

Original Articles

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

3,500 View
267 Download
3 Web of Science
3 Crossref

Abstract PDF Supplementary 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

Research ethics and issues regarding the use of ChatGPT-like artificial intelligence platforms by authors and reviewers: a narrative review
Sang-Jun Kim
Science Editing.2024; 11(2): 96. CrossRef
Explosive increase and decrease in articles, citations, impact factor, and immediacy index during the COVID-19 pandemic: a bibliometric study
Sang-Jun Kim
Science Editing.2024; 11(2): 107. CrossRef
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

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

2,628 View
247 Download
3 Web of Science
3 Crossref

Abstract 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

Review

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

5,958 View
456 Download
4 Web of Science
3 Crossref

Abstract 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

Decoding Research with a Glance: The Power of Graphical Abstracts and Infographics
Madhan Jeyaraman, Naveen Jeyaraman, Swaminathan Ramasubramanian, Abhishek Vaish, Raju Vaishya
Apollo Medicine.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
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

Training Material

Open-source code to convert Journal Article Tag Suite Extensible Markup Language (JATS XML) to various viewers and other XML types for scholarly journal publishing: Younsang Cho; Sci Ed. 2022;9(2):162-168. Published online August 19, 2022; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.284

3,897 View
258 Download
3 Web of Science
3 Crossref

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material

There are many ways to use open source code to implement digital standards for scholarly journal publishing. However, providing digital services using open-source code can be a challenge, especially for small and local academic society journals. This paper provides some critical examples of using some of the many open-source code resources available to the public. Journal Article Tag Suite (JATS) Extensible Markup Language (XML) has been established as an essential tool, and is now used by most journals for digital publication. JATS XML can be converted to other viewer formats, including Extensible Hypertext Markup Language, PubReader, and EPUB 3.0. It can also be used to create dynamic interactive PDFs. It can be converted to other XMLs, incluing Crossref XML, PubMed XML, and DOAJ XML. Open-source code published on GitHub, National Information Standards Organization, and the US National Library of Medicine can be used for Crossref XML deposition for digital object identifier and Crossmark stamp registration. These examples of open-source code need to be implemented on journal websites to provide local academic journal publishers with various critical functions. This paper provides instructions on the best ways to realize these digital standards so that journal content can be provided to readers in a more friendly and effective way.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Artificial intelligence in scholarly publishing and the role of the Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors in the Asia-Pacific region
Young Yoo
Science Editing.2024; 11(1): 77. CrossRef
Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions received the top-ranking Journal Impact Factor―9.3—in the category of Education, Scientific Disciplines in the 2023 Journal Citation Ranking by Clarivate
Sun Huh
Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions.2024; 21: 16. 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

Review

Influence of artificial intelligence and chatbots on research integrity and publication ethics: Payam Hosseinzadeh Kasani, Kee Hyun Cho, Jae-Won Jang, Cheol-Heui Yun; Sci Ed. 2024;11(1):12-25. Published online January 25, 2024; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.323

4,199 View
198 Download
2 Web of Science
2 Crossref

Abstract PDF

Artificial intelligence (AI)-powered chatbots are rapidly supplanting human-derived scholarly work in the fast-paced digital age. This necessitates a re-evaluation of our traditional research and publication ethics, which is the focus of this article. We explore the ethical issues that arise when AI chatbots are employed in research and publication. We critically examine the attribution of academic work, strategies for preventing plagiarism, the trustworthiness of AI-generated content, and the integration of empathy into these systems. Current approaches to ethical education, in our opinion, fall short of appropriately addressing these problems. We propose comprehensive initiatives to tackle these emerging ethical concerns. This review also examines the limitations of current chatbot detectors, underscoring the necessity for more sophisticated technology to safeguard academic integrity. The incorporation of AI and chatbots into the research environment is set to transform the way we approach scholarly inquiries. However, our study emphasizes the importance of employing these tools ethically within research and academia. As we move forward, it is of the utmost importance to concentrate on creating robust, flexible strategies and establishing comprehensive regulations that effectively align these potential technological developments with stringent ethical standards. We believe that this is an essential measure to ensure that the advancement of AI chatbots significantly augments the value of scholarly research activities, including publications, rather than introducing potential ethical quandaries.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Generative AI, Research Ethics, and Higher Education Research: Insights from a Scientometric Analysis
Saba Mansoor Qadhi, Ahmed Alduais, Youmen Chaaban, Majeda Khraisheh
Information.2024; 15(6): 325. CrossRef
Publication Ethics in the Era of Artificial Intelligence
Zafer Kocak
Journal of Korean Medical Science.2024;[Epub] CrossRef

Essay

Are we at the start of the artificial intelligence era in academic publishing?: Quan-Hoang Vuong, Viet-Phuong La, Minh-Hoang Nguyen, Ruining Jin, Tam-Tri Le; Sci Ed. 2023;10(2):158-164. Published online July 19, 2023; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.310

3,620 View
264 Download
1 Web of Science
2 Crossref

PDF

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Akademik Yazımda Yapay Zekâ Kullanımının Etik Açıdan İncelenmesi: ChatGPT Örneği
Samet Büyükada
Rize İlahiyat Dergisi.2024; (26): 1. CrossRef
Some discussions on critical information security issues in the artificial intelligence era
Vuong Quan Hoang, Viet-Phuong La, Hong-Son Nguyen, Minh-Hoang Nguyen
AI & SOCIETY.2024;[Epub] CrossRef

Review

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

2,929 View
280 Download
2 Web of Science
2 Crossref

Abstract 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

Original Article

Ukrainian scientific TV programs and YouTube channels as a distraction from war news on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine: a survey-based observational study and a content analysis: Roksolana Kravchenko; Sci Ed. 2022;9(2):136-141. Published online August 19, 2022; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.278

4,938 View
251 Download
2 Crossref

Abstract PDF

Purpose
This study examined whether popular science journalism can be a distraction from war news, as the life of all citizens in Ukraine has changed significantly since the beginning of the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022.
Methods
This article presents an audience survey on whether they viewed science content as a distraction from war news. In addition, an analysis of 10 Ukrainian YouTube channels was conducted. All videos that were published after February 24, 2022, the start date of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, were processed.
Results
Out of 460 audience members of TV programs and YouTube channels, 64.8% of respondents considered watching popular science or entertainment programs as a distraction from the war. An analysis of the content of popular science YouTube channels during the first 2 months of the war showed that every active channel was reformatted according to the realities of wartime. In addition, the audience survey demonstrated that even during the war, this type of content has remained relevant.
Conclusion
The Ukrainian audience needed scientific content as a distraction from the war. The majority of respondents, regardless of gender, needed to divert their attention from military operations. Ukrainian science journalists also joined the information war against the foreign invasion.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Popular Science Journalism as an Element of Educational Programs
Roksolana Kravchenko
Scientific notes of the Institute of Journalism.2023; (1 (82)): 97. CrossRef
The Role and Development of Popular Science TV Programs During Times of MilitaryActions
Roksolana Kravchenko
Current Issues of Mass Communication.2023; (34): 71. CrossRef

First
Prev
Page of 3
Next
Last

Most cited articles