Science Editing

From articles published in Science Editing during the past two years (2023 ~ ).

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

6,001 View
401 Download
12 Web of Science
13 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
Scholarly Discourse on GenAI’s Impact on Academic Publishing
Yogesh K. Dwivedi, Tegwen Malik, Laurie Hughes, Mousa Ahmed Albashrawi
Journal of Computer Information Systems.2024; : 1. 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

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

7,881 View
478 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

Original Article

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

5,593 View
427 Download
5 Web of Science
6 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; 41(9): 7. CrossRef
Is Artificial Intelligence against/for Better Ethical Scientific Research?
Huriye Yaşar, Vasif Karagücük
Experimental and Applied Medical Science.2024; 5(2): 49. CrossRef
Evaluating the significance of artificial intelligence (AI) in academic platforms by using PIPRECIA-S method
Tijana Đukić, Srđan Novaković, Kristina Jauković-Jocić
Ekonomika.2024; 70(3): 11. CrossRef
Scholarly Discourse on GenAI’s Impact on Academic Publishing
Yogesh K. Dwivedi, Tegwen Malik, Laurie Hughes, Mousa Ahmed Albashrawi
Journal of Computer Information Systems.2024; : 1. CrossRef

Reviews

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

7,796 View
555 Download
4 Web of Science
5 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

Visualizing medicine: The case for implementing graphical abstracts in clinical reporting
Naveen Jeyaraman, Madhan Jeyaraman, Swaminathan Ramasubramanian, Sangeetha Balaji, Arulkumar Nallakumarasamy
World Journal of Methodology.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
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
BİLİMSEL YAYINLARDA KULLANILAN GÖRSEL ÖZETLERİN TASARIM İLKELERİ VE GÖRSEL ALGI KURAMLARI BAĞLAMINDA İNCELENMESİ
Arzu Gürdal
Stratejik ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi.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

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

8,829 View
314 Download
3 Web of Science
4 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
Evaluating AI Excellence: A Comparative Analysis of Generative Models in Library and Information Science
Raiyan Bin Reza, Md. Rifat Mahmud, S.M. Zabed Ahmed
Science & Technology Libraries.2024; : 1. CrossRef

Research ethics and issues regarding the use of ChatGPT-like artificial intelligence platforms by authors and reviewers: a narrative review: Sang-Jun Kim; Sci Ed. 2024;11(2):96-106. Published online August 20, 2024; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.343

4,437 View
365 Download
1 Web of Science
3 Crossref

Abstract PDF

While generative artificial intelligence (AI) technology has become increasingly competitive since OpenAI introduced ChatGPT, its widespread use poses significant ethical challenges in research. Excessive reliance on tools like ChatGPT may intensify ethical concerns in scholarly articles. Therefore, this article aims to provide a comprehensive narrative review of the ethical issues associated with using AI in academic writing and to inform researchers of current trends. Our methodology involved a detailed examination of literature on ChatGPT and related research trends. We conducted searches in major databases to identify additional relevant articles and cited literature, from which we collected and analyzed papers. We identified major issues from the literature, categorized into problems faced by authors using nonacademic AI platforms in writing and challenges related to the detection and acceptance of AI-generated content by reviewers and editors. We explored eight specific ethical problems highlighted by authors and reviewers and conducted a thorough review of five key topics in research ethics. Given that nonacademic AI platforms like ChatGPT often do not disclose their training data sources, there is a substantial risk of unattributed content and plagiarism. Therefore, researchers must verify the accuracy and authenticity of AI-generated content before incorporating it into their article, ensuring adherence to principles of research integrity and ethics, including avoidance of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools in Journal Article Preparation: A Preliminary Catalog of Ethical Considerations, Opportunities, and Pitfalls
Robin R. White
JDS Communications.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
How is ChatGPT acknowledged in academic publications?
Kayvan Kousha
Scientometrics.2024; 129(12): 7959. CrossRef
Appliances of Generative AI-Powered Language Tools in Academic Writing: A Scoping Review
Lilia Raitskaya, Elena Tikhonova
Journal of Language and Education.2024; 10(4): 5. CrossRef

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

5,600 View
289 Download
3 Web of Science
3 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
Exploring the Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Research Ethics - A Systematic Review
Gabriel Andrade-Hidalgo, Pedro Mio-Cango, Orlando Iparraguirre-Villanueva
Journal of Academic Ethics.2024;[Epub] 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

4,107 View
273 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

2,973 View
262 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

Editorial

Artificial intelligence–assisted writing: a continuously evolving issue: Jaegyun Park; Sci Ed. 2023;10(2):115-118. Published online August 9, 2023; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.318

4,117 View
361 Download
2 Web of Science
2 Crossref

PDF Supplementary Material

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Analyzing AI use policy in LIS: association with journal metrics and publisher volume
Eungi Kim
Scientometrics.2024; 129(12): 7623. CrossRef
Assessing the Influence of AI on Modern Student Writing Standards: An Educators' Perspective
Reem Alhajji
Research Journal in Advanced Humanities.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

3,934 View
273 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

Original Article

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

3,116 View
247 Download
2 Web of Science
2 Crossref

Abstract 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
Demystifying multilingual LIS journals in Scopus: Languages, coverage, metrics, and implications
Eungi Kim
Journal of Librarianship and Information Science.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

3,270 View
292 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

Correspondence

Did ChatGPT ask or agree to be a (co)author? ChatGPT authorship reflects the wider problem of inappropriate authorship practices: Bor Luen Tang; Sci Ed. 2024;11(2):93-95. Published online July 4, 2024; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.337

1,296 View
91 Download
1 Crossref

PDF Supplementary Material

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Ethical use of ChatGPT in education—Best practices to combat AI-induced plagiarism
Attila Kovari
Frontiers in Education.2025;[Epub] CrossRef

Original Article

Adherence to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors–recommended gender equity policy in nursing journals listed in MEDLINE or PubMed Central: a descriptive study: Eun Jeong Ko, Geum Hee Jeong; Sci Ed. 2024;11(1):33-37. Published online February 20, 2024; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.328

2,480 View
89 Download
1 Crossref

Abstract PDF

Purpose
The evolving landscape of nursing research emphasizes inclusive representation. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has established guidelines to ensure the fair representation of various demographic variables, including age, sex, and ethnicity. This study aimed to evaluate the adherence of nursing journals indexed in MEDLINE or PubMed Central to the ICMJE’s directives on gender equity, given that journals indexed in MEDLINE and PubMed Central typically adhere to the ICMJE’s guidelines.
Methods
A descriptive literature review methodology was employed to analyze 160 nursing journals listed in two databases as of July 28, 2023. The website of each journal was searched, and the most recent original article from each was selected. These articles were then evaluated for their alignment with the ICMJE guidelines on gender equity. Descriptive statistics were applied to categorize and enumerate the cases.
Results
Of the articles reviewed from 160 journals, 115 dealt with human populations. Of these, 93 required a description of gender equity. Within this subset, 83 articles distinguished between the genders of human subjects. Gender-based interpretations were provided in 15 articles, while another 68 did not offer an interpretation of differences by gender. Among the 10 articles that did not delineate gender, only two provided a rationale for this omission.
Conclusion
Among recent articles published in the nursing journals indexed in MEDLINE and PubMed Central, only 16.1% presented clear gender analyses. These findings highlight the need for editors to strengthen their dedication to gender equity within their editorial policies.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Academic journal website from the user’s perspective
A. V. Silnichaya, D. I. Trushkov, A. Volkova, M. S. Konyaev
Science Editor and Publisher.2024; 9(1): 2. CrossRef

First
Prev
Page of 2
Next
Last

Most cited articles