Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Science Editing : Science Editing

OPEN ACCESS
SEARCH
Search

Most read articles

Page Path
HOME > Browse articles > Most read articles
77 Most read articles
Filter
Filter
Article category
Keywords
Publication year
Authors
Funded articles

Most-read articles are from the articles published in 2022 during the last three month.

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
  • 4,336 View
  • 159 Download
  • 1 Web of Science
  • 1 Crossref
AbstractAbstract PDFSupplementary 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
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
  • 6,029 View
  • 328 Download
  • 10 Web of Science
  • 16 Crossref
AbstractAbstract PDF
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; 11(1): 81.     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;[Epub]     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
  • 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
Case Study
Copyright policies of science and engineering open access journals indexed in Science Citation Index Expanded or Scopus, published by Korean academic societies: a case study
Dae Un Hong, Ju Yoen Lee
Sci Ed. 2024;11(1):62-72.   Published online February 20, 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.330
  • 2,455 View
  • 74 Download
AbstractAbstract PDF
This article explores the challenges related to copyright policies in the context of science and engineering open access (OA) journals based in Korea. The English-language science and engineering OA journals published independently by Korean academic societies typically exhibit three common characteristics regarding their copyright and licensing policies. First, authors are generally required to transfer their copyrights. Second, the Creative Commons (CC) license terms are predominantly BY-NC (Attribution-NonCommercial), without providing authors the option to select alternative licensing terms. Third, the journals do not sufficiently protect the rights of the authors. From the analyses presented herein, it is evident that the current copyright and licensing policies of Korea’s English-language science and engineering OA journals lack a robust structure. These policies need to be revised to allow authors to retain copyright and require them to consent for the CC license terms it adopts, in order to align with the common practice among OA journals. Furthermore, to better protect authors’ rights, it would be beneficial to permit authors to choose the specific terms of the CC license for their articles.
Reviews
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
  • 2,402 View
  • 128 Download
  • 1 Crossref
AbstractAbstract 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
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
  • 6,019 View
  • 439 Download
  • 3 Web of Science
  • 9 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
  • 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
Training Material
ChatGPT for editors: enhancing efficiency and effectiveness
Yunhee Whang
Sci Ed. 2024;11(1):84-90.   Published online February 20, 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.332
  • 1,779 View
  • 100 Download
AbstractAbstract PDF
This tutorial examines how ChatGPT can assist journal editors in improving the efficiency and effectiveness of academic publishing. It highlights ChatGPT’s key characteristics, focusing on the use of “Custom instructions” to generate tailored responses and plugin integration for accessing up-to-date information. The tutorial presents practical advice and illustrative examples to demonstrate how editors can adeptly employ these features to improve their work practices. It covers the intricacies of developing advanced prompts and the application of zero-shot and few-shot prompting techniques across a range of editorial tasks, including literature reviews, training novice reviewers, and improving language quality. Furthermore, the tutorial addresses potential challenges inherent in using ChatGPT, which include a lack of precision and sensitivity to cultural nuances, the presence of biases, and a limited vocabulary in specialized fields, among others. The tutorial concludes by advocating for an integrated approach, combining ChatGPT’s technological advancements with the critical insight of human editors. This approach emphasizes that ChatGPT should be recognized not as a replacement for human judgment and expertise in editorial processes, but as a tool that plays a supportive and complementary role.
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
  • 4,825 View
  • 416 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 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
  • 1,658 View
  • 64 Download
AbstractAbstract 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.
Editorials
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
  • 6,384 View
  • 234 Download
  • 2 Web of Science
  • 4 Crossref
PDF

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • 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
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
  • 4,627 View
  • 382 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
Original Article
Comparing the accuracy and effectiveness of Wordvice AI Proofreader to two automated editing tools and human editors
Kevin Heintz, Younghoon Roh, Jonghwan Lee
Sci Ed. 2022;9(1):37-45.   Published online February 20, 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.261
  • 5,701 View
  • 353 Download
  • 1 Crossref
AbstractAbstract PDF
Purpose: Wordvice AI Proofreader is a recently developed web-based artificial intelligence-driven text processor that provides real-time automated proofreading and editing of user-input text. It aims to compare its accuracy and effectiveness to expert proofreading by human editors and two other popular proofreading applications—automated writing analysis tools of Google Docs, and Microsoft Word. Because this tool was primarily designed for use by academic authors to proofread their manuscript drafts, the comparison of this tool’s efficacy to other tools was intended to establish the usefulness of this particular field for these authors.
Methods
We performed a comparative analysis of proofreading completed by the Wordvice AI Proofreader, by experienced human academic editors, and by two other popular proofreading applications. The number of errors accurately reported and the overall usefulness of the vocabulary suggestions was measured using a General Language Evaluation Understanding metric and open dataset comparisons.
Results
In the majority of texts analyzed, the Wordvice AI Proofreader achieved performance levels at or near that of the human editors, identifying similar errors and offering comparable suggestions in the majority of sample passages. The Wordvice AI Proofreader also had higher performance and greater consistency than that of the other two proofreading applications evaluated.
Conclusion
We found that the overall functionality of the Wordvice artificial intelligence proofreading tool is comparable to that of a human proofreader and equal or superior to that of two other programs with built-in automated writing evaluation proofreaders used by tens of millions of users: Google Docs and Microsoft Word.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • Navigating the impact: a study of editors’ and proofreaders’ perceptions of AI tools in editing and proofreading
    Islam Al Sawi, Ahmed Alaa
    Discover Artificial Intelligence.2024;[Epub]     CrossRef
Editorial
Reflecting on the past 10 years of Asian scholarly journals
Tae-Sul Seo
Sci Ed. 2024;11(1):1-2.   Published online February 20, 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.326
  • 1,552 View
  • 69 Download
PDF
Original Articles
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
  • 4,404 View
  • 250 Download
  • 2 Crossref
AbstractAbstract 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
Impact factor surge in Korean medical journals during the COVID-19 era: a bibliometric study
Chansu Park, Sejin Park, Hyeonseok Seo, Janghyeog Oh, Dongryeong Kim, Junha Kang, Hanul Kang, Hyunsung Kang, Yaechan Kim, Mi Ah Han
Sci Ed. 2024;11(1):55-61.   Published online December 18, 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.320
  • 2,883 View
  • 90 Download
AbstractAbstract PDFSupplementary Material
Purpose: The multiyear COVID-19 pandemic has affected the volume and speed of publications in scientific journals. This study evaluated trends in the impact measures of international medical journals published in Korea, including the journal impact factor (JIF).
Methods
We selected Science Citation Index Expanded journals with the country/region set to Korea and the academic category classified as “clinical medicine” in Journal Citation Reports. Trends in indicators such as the JIF and Journal Citation Indicator (JCI) were assessed for journals with JIF information from 2018 to 2022. Ratios and differences between the measures were calculated to determine the extent of the change.
Results
We identified 43 journals, and the average JIF of those journals increased from 2.33 in 2018 and 2.50 in 2019 to 3.45 in 2020 and 3.86 in 2021. Other measures, such as the 5-year JIF and JCI, steadily increased, and the proportion of gold open access journals also increased significantly. However, the JCI and Eigenfactor scores remained steady or showed relatively small increases. Furthermore, impact measures declined in 2022, including a JIF decrease to 3.55.
Conclusion
We presented trends in quantitative measurements for international medical journals in Korea, and found an overall increase. Journals need to maintain a rigorous publication process to improve the quality of their research and the research community needs to exercise caution when using quantitative measures to evaluate journals. Further research is required to examine the quantitative indicators of journals, including their publication policies, research topics, and long-term trends.
Co-authorship network analysis of North Korean chemistry researchers based on issues of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering published from 2008 to 2022: a bibliometric study
Eunmi Park, Ho-Yeol Yoon
Sci Ed. 2024;11(1):38-43.   Published online February 20, 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.329
  • 1,418 View
  • 72 Download
AbstractAbstract PDFSupplementary Material
Purpose: This study conducted a comprehensive analysis of North Korean domestic journals, using scientific quantification methodologies to identify prominent researchers and research areas within the field of chemistry.
Methods
Data were collected from the journal Chemistry and Chemical Engineering published in North Korea. Through an analysis of co-authorship relations and literature reviews of papers authored by researchers who were highly influential in research networks, core research areas were identified.
Results
The researcher with the highest number of publications in the given period was Yong-Chol Lee, with 31 publications, followed closely by Gyun Kim, who also demonstrated significant research activity. When focusing on the last 5 years, Myeong-Cheol Hong emerged as a prominent figure. Yong-Chol Lee has expertise across diverse fields of chemistry, including fine chemicals, biochemistry, and mineral materials. Gyun Kim, in contrast, is recognized for his in-depth knowledge of organics, enzymes, processes, catalysis, fine chemicals, and industrial chemistry. Myung-Cheol Hong’s research primarily centers around organic chemical synthesis within the fine chemical domain. All three researchers are making substantial contributions to the chemical industry.
Conclusion
The findings of this study provide valuable insights into research trends in the field of chemistry in North Korea and contribute to a broader understanding of the discipline’s internal knowledge structure within the global academic community. This research is anticipated to be especially useful for scholars who are analyzing bibliographic information pertaining to North Korea.

Science Editing : Science Editing