Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Science Editing : Science Editing

OPEN ACCESS
SEARCH
Search

Search

Page Path
HOME > Search
3 "Copyright"
Filter
Filter
Article category
Keywords
Publication year
Authors
Funded articles
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
  • 2,048 View
  • 68 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.
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
  • 5,418 View
  • 433 Download
  • 4 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;[Epub]     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
Case Study
How should medical researchers respond to false copyright infringement claims?
Sung Pil Park, Eric Yong Joong Lee
Sci Ed. 2019;6(2):137-141.   Published online August 19, 2019
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.174
  • 12,290 View
  • 348 Download
  • 1 Web of Science
  • 2 Crossref
AbstractAbstract PDF
Serious concerns have been raised about the Morisky Medication Adherence Scales (MMAS-4 and MMAS-8) ever since researchers from Asia and other regions were claimed to have used the MMAS without a license. Donald Morisky and his team have claimed that numerous authors have infringed copyright, trademark, or other rights over the MMAS. This case study will scrutinize whether the MMAS is protected by any intellectual property rights, including copyright and trademark. In many cases, the authors have not applied the MMAS for their research, but have only introduced or described the MMAS in papers that are accessible and open to the public. The MMAS is a measure to keep track of and check the regularity and accuracy with which patients take their medications; it is not meant as a diagnosis and does not form a basis for treatment plans. If another researcher rephrases the questions in a way that achieves a certain level of originality, not infringing the original expressions of the MMAS, then Morisky and his team may not be able to claim infringement of its copyright. Even assuming that the MMAS is subject to copyright, the authors can raise a “fair use” defense. Concerted actions may be necessary for researchers to protect academic integrity and the public nature of scholarly works. The fair use of the MMAS in a scholarly article should not be barred by false copyright infringement claims.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • Drug compliance and the Morisky Adherence Scale: An expression of concern and a warning
    Alain Li‐Wan‐Po, Gregory M. Peterson
    Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics.2021; 46(1): 1.     CrossRef
  • Questionnaires and scores for assessing medication adherence — advantages and disadvantages of the diagnostic method in research and actual clinical practice
    Yu. V. Lukina, N. P. Kutishenko, S. Yu. Martsevich, O. M. Drapkina
    Cardiovascular Therapy and Prevention.2020; 19(3): 2562.     CrossRef

Science Editing : Science Editing