Science Editing

Essay

Before you click “submit,” be your own first reviewer: Jean Iwaz; Sci Ed. 2023;10(1):105-108. Published online November 16, 2022; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.288

3,120 View
286 Download

Abstract PDF: For various reasons, despite previous linguistic, formatting, and other checks, beginner-authored or multi-authored manuscripts may be rushed to submission while lacking consistency. This article provides a clear outline of the final round of checks for section consistency, subsection consistency, and overall coherence that a scientific manuscript should undergo before submission. Checks for consistency should target the following: consistency between full and short titles; the exact answer in conclusion to research objectives (questions) and matching between methods and results in the abstract; consistency from a comprehensive view of the research field to the announcement of a single specific objective in the introduction section; coherence between methods and results sections and between results and illustrations in the rest of the text; and, recalls of the objective, the results, and the conclusions in the discussion section. Finally, consistency should be ensured between the various sections of the abstract and those of the manuscript, with the ideal abstract being a true miniature of the manuscript. An original figure provides a handy visual checklist authors might use to implement and achieve manuscript drafting. This round of checks increases readability, comprehensibility, confidence in the results, and the credibility of the authors. Subsequently, confidence and credibility will increase the probability of publication and the visibility of a whole team’s work.

Reviews

Types, limitations, and possible alternatives of peer review based on the literature and surgeons’ opinions via Twitter: a narrative review: Sameh Hany Emile, Hytham K. S. Hamid, Semra Demirli Atici, Doga Nur Kosker, Mario Virgilio Papa, Hossam Elfeki, Chee Yang Tan, Alaa El-Hussuna, Steven D. Wexner; Sci Ed. 2022;9(1):3-14. Published online February 20, 2022; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.257

5,634 View
308 Download

Abstract PDF: This review aimed to illustrate the types, limitations, and possible alternatives of peer review (PR) based on a literature review together with the opinions of a social media audience via Twitter. This study was conducted via the #OpenSourceResearch collaborative platform and combined a comprehensive literature search on the current PR system with the opinions of a social media audience of surgeons who are actively engaged in the current PR system. Six independent researchers conducted a literature search of electronic databases in addition to Google Scholar. Electronic polls were organized via Twitter to assess surgeons’ opinions on the current PR system and potential alternative approaches. PR can be classified into single-blind, double-blind, triple-blind, and open PR. Newer PR systems include interactive platforms, prepublication and postpublication commenting or review, transparent review, and collaborative review. The main limitations of the current PR system are its allegedly time-consuming nature and inconsistent, biased, and non-transparent results. Suggestions to improve the PR process include employing an interactive, double-blind PR system, using artificial intelligence to recruit reviewers, providing incentives for reviewers, and using PR templates. The above results offer several concepts for possible alternative approaches and modifications to this critically important process.

Artificial intelligence-assisted tools for redefining the communication landscape of the scholarly world: Habeeb Ibrahim Abdul Razack, Sam T. Mathew, Fathinul Fikri Ahmad Saad, Saleh A. Alqahtani; Sci Ed. 2021;8(2):134-144. Published online July 27, 2021; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.244

18,077 View
625 Download
12 Web of Science
12 Crossref

Abstract PDF

The flood of research output and increasing demands for peer reviewers have necessitated the intervention of artificial intelligence (AI) in scholarly publishing. Although human input is seen as essential for writing publications, the contribution of AI slowly and steadily moves ahead. AI may redefine the role of science communication experts in the future and transform the scholarly publishing industry into a technology-driven one. It can prospectively improve the quality of publishable content and identify errors in published content. In this article, we review various AI and other associated tools currently in use or development for a range of publishing obligations and functions that have brought about or can soon leverage much-demanded advances in scholarly communications. Several AI-assisted tools, with diverse scope and scale, have emerged in the scholarly market. AI algorithms develop summaries of scientific publications and convert them into plain-language texts, press statements, and news stories. Retrieval of accurate and sufficient information is prominent in evidence-based science publications. Semantic tools may empower transparent and proficient data extraction tactics. From detecting simple plagiarism errors to predicting the projected citation impact of an unpublished article, AI’s role in scholarly publishing is expected to be multidimensional. AI, natural language processing, and machine learning in scholarly publishing have arrived for writers, editors, authors, and publishers. They should leverage these technologies to enable the fast and accurate dissemination of scientific information to contribute to the betterment of humankind.

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
Beyond Plagiarism: ChatGPT as the Vanguard of Technological Revolution in Research and Citation
Hanni B. Flaherty, Jackson Yurch
Research on Social Work Practice.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
Artificial intelligence-assisted medical writing: With greater power comes greater responsibility
Rhythm Bains
Asian Journal of Oral Health and Allied Sciences.2023; 13: 2. CrossRef
Emergence of the metaverse and ChatGPT in journal publishing after the COVID-19 pandemic
Sun Huh
Science Editing.2023; 10(1): 1. CrossRef
Author-Profile-Based Journal Recommendation for a Candidate Article: Using Hybrid Semantic Similarity and Trend Analysis
Mehmet Yașar Bayraktar, Mehmet Kaya
IEEE Access.2023; 11: 45826. CrossRef
Utilization of artificial intelligence technology in an academic writing class: How do Indonesian students perceive?
Santi Pratiwi Tri Utami, Andayani Andayani, Retno Winarni, Sumarwati Sumarwati
Contemporary Educational Technology.2023; 15(4): ep450. CrossRef
The impact of generative AI tools on researchers and research: Implications for academia in higher education
Abdulrahman M. Al-Zahrani
Innovations in Education and Teaching International.2023; : 1. CrossRef
Slow Writing with ChatGPT: Turning the Hype into a Right Way Forward
Chitnarong Sirisathitkul
Postdigital Science and Education.2023;[Epub] 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
Current Status of Neurointervention, the Official Journal of the Korean Society of Interventional Neuroradiology
Dae Chul Suh, Sun Huh
Neurointervention.2022; 17(2): 67. CrossRef
Profiles of Technology Use and Plagiarism in High School Education
Juan Carlos Torres-Diaz, Pablo Vicente Torres Carrión, Isidro Marín Gutierrez
SSRN Electronic Journal .2021;[Epub] CrossRef

Case Study

Development of an open peer review system using blockchain and reviewer recommendation technologies: Dong-Hoon Choi, Tae-Sul Seo; Sci Ed. 2021;8(1):104-111. Published online February 20, 2021; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.237

5,325 View
149 Download
2 Web of Science
5 Crossref

Abstract PDF

In order to create a transparent and sound academic communication ecosystem centered on researchers, we developed a system that applied blockchain technology to an open peer review system. In this study, an open peer review system was developed based on Hyperledger Fabric, which is a private blockchain. The system can be operated in connection with the reviewer recommendation module of the existing submission management system. In the reviewer recommendation module, reviewers are recommended by excluding co-authors and colleagues after an expertise test. The blockchain system performs an open peer review process based on smart contracts, while the submission management system selects reviewers for peer review. A service broker intervenes between these two systems for data interchange. The system developed herein is expected to be used as a researcher-centered scholarly communication model in the open science era, in which the intervention of publishers is minimized, and authors and reviewers (as researchers) are centered.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Blockchain solutions for scientific paper peer review: a systematic mapping of the literature
Allan Farias Fávaro, Roderval Marcelino, Cristian Cechinel
Data Technologies and Applications.2024; 58(2): 214. CrossRef
A Novel Blockchain-Based Scientific Publishing System
Mansur Beştaş, Ruhi Taş, Erdal Akin, Merve Ozkan-Okay, Ömer Aslan, Semih Serkant Aktug
Sustainability.2023; 15(4): 3354. CrossRef
Prospects of digital scientific publishing on blockchain: The concept of DAP
Karolj Skala, Zorislav Šojat, Josip Maričević, Davor Davidović, Viktor Bojović, Tomislav Zubčić, Branimir Kolarek, Dario Pažin, Draško Tomić, Tadej Slapnik, Mario Pecimotika
Open Research Europe.2023; 3: 117. CrossRef
Bilimsel Yayın Deneyimleri: Editör, Hakem ve Yazar Olmak
Özden ÖLMEZ CEYLAN, Aslı AĞIROĞLU BAKIR
e-International Journal of Educational Research.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
Role-Based Smart Contract: An Intelligent System for Scholarly Communication
Eashwar Sivakumar, Paras Chawla
SN Computer Science.2022;[Epub] CrossRef

Training Material

Reviewing a journal article with clarity and politeness: key language tips for non-native English-speaking reviewers: Yunhee Whang; Sci Ed. 2020;7(2):204-208. Published online August 20, 2020; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.220

10,422 View
238 Download
3 Web of Science
3 Crossref

Abstract PDF

One of the important responsibilities of peer review in academic publishing is to help authors improve the quality of their manuscripts by providing clear, constructive comments that are neither unpleasant nor disparaging. However, non-native English-speaking reviewers sometimes have difficulties in complementing or criticizing with clarity. It can also be difficult for reviewers to write appropriate and inter-culturally sensitive reviews. Thus, the goal of this paper is to help reviewers (and authors) improve clarity and achieve politeness in their writing. This paper focuses on understanding information structure (how information is generally arranged in a given context), cohesion (how ideas or sentences are connected), and emphasis (how to control emphasis with sentence structure or linguistic devices); it also introduces various politeness strategies for writing compliments and mitigating criticisms. The specific strategies include the use of conditionals, hedging, and pairing good news and bad news. Examples of effective and ineffective reviewer comments and cases of potential miscommunication that might occur between reviewers and authors are also presented. Developing skills to write peer review comments more clearly and politely enhances communication between reviewers and authors, which in turn further improves the journal’s overall quality.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Ten Tips for Performing Your First Peer Review: The Next Step for the Aspiring Academic Plastic Surgeon
Martin Frendø, Andreas Frithioff, Steven Arild Wuyts Andersen
Archives of Plastic Surgery.2022; 49(04): 538. CrossRef
Ethics and Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers to the Authors, Readers, and Editors
Seung-Kee Min
Vascular Specialist International.2021; 37(1): 1. CrossRef
Peer review guidance: a primer for researchers
Olena Zimba, Armen Gasparyan
Rheumatology.2021; 59(1): 3. CrossRef

Original Article

Data journals: types of peer review, review criteria, and editorial committee members’ positions: Sunkyung Seo, Jihyun Kim; Sci Ed. 2020;7(2):130-135. Published online August 20, 2020; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.207

7,016 View
160 Download
3 Web of Science
3 Crossref

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material

Purpose: This study analyzed the peer review systems, criteria, and editorial committee structures of data journals, aiming to determine the current state of data peer review and to offer suggestions.
Methods
We analyzed peer review systems and criteria for peer review in nine data journals indexed by Web of Science, as well as the positions of the editorial committee members of the journals. Each data journal’s website was initially surveyed, and the editors-in-chief were queried via email about any information not found on the websites. The peer review criteria of the journals were analyzed in terms of data quality, metadata quality, and general quality.
Results
Seven of the nine data journals adopted single-blind and open review peer review methods. The remaining two implemented modified models, such as interactive and community review. In the peer review criteria, there was a shared emphasis on the appropriateness of data production methodology and detailed descriptions. The editorial committees of the journals tended to have subject editors or subject advisory boards, while a few journals included positions with the responsibility of evaluating the technical quality of data.
Conclusion
Creating a community of subject experts and securing various editorial positions for peer review are necessary for data journals to achieve data quality assurance and to promote reuse. New practices will emerge in terms of data peer review models, criteria, and editorial positions, and further research needs to be conducted.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Dissemination effect of data papers on scientific datasets
Hong Jiao, Yuhong Qiu, Xiaowei Ma, Bo Yang
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology.2024; 75(2): 115. CrossRef
The data paper as a sociolinguistic epistemic object: A content analysis on the rhetorical moves used in data paper abstracts
Kai Li, Chenyue Jiao
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology.2022; 73(6): 834. CrossRef
Korean researchers’ motivations for publishing in data journals and the usefulness of their data: a qualitative study
Jungyeoun Lee, Jihyun Kim
Science Editing.2021; 8(2): 145. CrossRef

Case Study

Compliance of education journals in Vietnam with the minimum criteria to be indexed in the ASEAN Citation Index and Scopus: Trung Tran, Loc Thi My Nguyen, Thanh Thi Nghiem, Hien Thi Thu Le, Cuong Huu Nguyen, Thuy Phuong La, Trung Tien Nguyen, Hang Thi-Thu Nguyen; Sci Ed. 2019;6(2):142-147. Published online August 19, 2019; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.175

7,314 View
124 Download

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material: This study aimed at elucidating the present situation of scholarly journals published in Vietnam according to the minimum criteria to be indexed in the ASEAN Citation Index (ACI) and Scopus, with the goal of suggesting development strategies for scholarly journals in Vietnam. From the 387 journals accredited by the Vietnamese State Council for Professorship, 13 education journals were arbitrarily selected, and their compliance with the five minimum criteria for the ACI (peer review, timeliness, abstracts in English, references in Roman script, and a website in English) and the six minimum criteria for Scopus (peer review, timeline, abstracts in English, references in Roman characters, Electronic International Standard Serial Number [ISSN], and publication ethics) were assessed. Two of the 13 journals were eligible to be indexed in the ACI, while none fulfilled the minimum criteria to be indexed in Scopus. An urgent task for the editors of those journals is to establish an informative journal homepage in English that provides basic information on the journal. Then, an Electronic ISSN can be obtained from the ISSN International Center. Furthermore, the following steps are suggested for journal promotion: establishment of appropriate editorial policies and publication ethics procedures, improvement of research integrity, enhancement of the journals’ reputation in the international scientific community, and improvement of the online publishing system by adopting a journal manuscript management system. To achieve those goals, financial support from the Vietnamese government will be invaluable.

Original Articles

Comparative analysis of manuscript management systems for scholarly publishing: Soon Kim, Hyungwook Choi, Nayon Kim, EunKyung Chung, Jae Yun Lee; Sci Ed. 2018;5(2):124-134. Published online August 20, 2018; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.137

20,542 View
356 Download
7 Web of Science
6 Crossref

Abstract PDF

To improve scholarly communications with scientists throughout the world, an international-level manuscript management system is indispensable. We analyzed the manuscript management systems currently in use in Korea and suggested ways to improve these domestic systems through benchmarking with representative overseas systems. Drawing information from the manufacturer’s documentation, we compared the functionalities of the major manuscript management systems available in Korea to international systems. Based on this analysis, we identified the essential elements necessary to meet international standards. The representative international systems provide an intuitive interface and an efficient communication channel for authors, editors, and reviewers, enabling them to save time. The two domestic paid systems are almost at the international level; however, the free systems developed in Korea need to be upgraded. In particular, more advanced visualization tools, more efficient tools for communication between stakeholders, and convenient linking to external content are needed. Studies of these manuscript management systems, which are essential for the internationalization of domestic journals, can be utilized as primary materials to improve the level of Korean academic journals in response to the rapid changes in modern scholarly communication.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Artificial intelligence to support publishing and peer review: A summary and review
Kayvan Kousha, Mike Thelwall
Learned Publishing.2024; 37(1): 4. CrossRef
Should publishers use online submission systems to harvest authors’ responses to diversity, equity and inclusion?
J. A. Teixeira da Silva
Science Editor and Publisher.2023; 7(2): 210. CrossRef
An Exploratory Study into Professional Scholarly Journals Publishing Software Adoption in Lithuania
Vincas Grigas, Arūnas Gudinavičius, Tomas Petreikis, Andrius Šuminas
Information & Media.2023; 96: 179. CrossRef
A Blockchain-Based Editorial Management System
Eman-Yaser Daraghmi, Mamoun Abu Helou, Yousef-Awwad Daraghmi, omar cheikhrouhou
Security and Communication Networks.2021; 2021: 1. CrossRef
Artificial intelligence-assisted tools for redefining the communication landscape of the scholarly world
Habeeb Ibrahim Abdul Razack, Sam T. Mathew, Fathinul Fikri Ahmad Saad, Saleh A. Alqahtani
Science Editing.2021; 8(2): 134. CrossRef
The “invisible hand” of peer review: The implications of author-referee networks on peer review in a scholarly journal
Pierpaolo Dondio, Niccolò Casnici, Francisco Grimaldo, Nigel Gilbert, Flaminio Squazzoni
Journal of Informetrics.2019; 13(2): 708. CrossRef

Authors’ perspectives on academic publishing: initial observations from a large-scale global survey: Basil D’Souza, Sneha Kulkarni, Clarinda Cerejo; Sci Ed. 2018;5(1):39-43. Published online February 19, 2018; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.116

12,669 View
244 Download
12 Web of Science
7 Crossref

Abstract PDF

Authors are at the heart of academic publishing, but their voices are underrepresented in discussions about improving the academic publishing system. To understand the viewpoints of authors on various aspects of academic publishing and the challenges they face, we developed a large-scale survey entitled “Author perspectives on the academic publishing process” and made it available in December 2016. The survey has received 8,795 responses; this paper is based on the interim results drawn from 5,293 survey responses, and presents some interesting and thought-provoking trends that were observed in the authors’ responses, such as their interpretation of plagiarism and decisive factors in journal selection, as well as their thoughts on what needs to change in the publishing system for it to be more author-friendly. Some of the most important findings of the survey were: (1) the majority of the authors found manuscript preparation to be the most challenging task in the publication process, (2) the impact factor of a journal was reported to be the most important consideration for journal selection, (3) most authors found journal guidelines to be incomplete, (4) major gaps existed in author-journal communication, and (5) although awareness of ethics was high, awareness of good publication practice standards was low. Moreover, more than half of the participants indicated that among areas for improvement in the publishing system, they would like to see changes in the time it takes to publish a paper, the peer review process, and the fairness and objectivity of the publication process. These findings indicate the necessity of making the journal publication process more author-centered and smoothing the way for authors to get published.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Factors affecting authors' manuscript submission behaviour: A systematic review
Xiaoting Xu, Juan Xie, Jianjun Sun, Ying Cheng
Learned Publishing.2023; 36(2): 285. CrossRef
Authors' choice between parent and mirror journals of Elsevier
Sumiko Asai
Learned Publishing.2023; 36(2): 299. CrossRef
Video or perish? An analysis of video abstract author guidelines
Jianxin Liu
Journal of Librarianship and Information Science.2022; 54(2): 230. CrossRef
Why consistent, clear, and uniform instructions for authors are required
Jean Iwaz
Science Editing.2022; 9(2): 142. CrossRef
Characteristics of high research performance authors in the field of library and information science and those of their articles
Yu-Wei Chang
Scientometrics.2021; 126(4): 3373. CrossRef
Impact of a new institutional medical journal on professional identity development and academic cultural change: A qualitative study
Victoria Hayes, Emma Williams, Kathleen M. Fairfield, Carolyne Falank, Dina McKelvy, Robert Bing‐You
Learned Publishing.2021; 34(4): 602. CrossRef
Are articles in library and information science (LIS) journals primarily contributed to by LIS authors?
Yu-Wei Chang
Scientometrics.2019; 121(1): 81. CrossRef

Training Material

Peer review golden rules and good practice checklist: Irene Hames; Sci Ed. 2016;3(1):36-42. Published online February 19, 2016; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.61

26,858 View
455 Download
3 Web of Science
3 Crossref

Abstract PDF

This is a republication of Appendix 1, The Golden Rules and the Peer-Review Good Practice Checklist, from the author’s book, Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals: guidelines for good practice, published in 2007 by Wiley-Blackwell in association with ALPSP (the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers), with the permission of the author and publisher (ISBN: 978-1-4051-3159-9, http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/ productCd-1405131594.html).

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Ten Tips for Performing Your First Peer Review: The Next Step for the Aspiring Academic Plastic Surgeon
Martin Frendø, Andreas Frithioff, Steven Arild Wuyts Andersen
Archives of Plastic Surgery.2022; 49(04): 538. CrossRef
Do’s and Don’ts for a Good Reviewer of Scientific Papers: A Beginner’s Brief Decalogue
Miltos K. Lazarides, George S. Georgiadis, Nikolaos Papanas
The International Journal of Lower Extremity Wounds.2020; 19(3): 227. CrossRef
Writing highly effective reviews of a scientific manuscript
Garry J. Scrimgeour, Shelley D. Pruss
Freshwater Science.2016; 35(4): 1076. CrossRef

Review

Peer review at the beginning of the 21st century: Irene Hames; Sci Ed. 2014;1(1):4-8. Published online February 13, 2014; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.2014.1.4

21,574 View
157 Download
4 Web of Science
7 Crossref

Abstract PDF

Vigorous debate currently surrounds peer review, and polarized views are often expressed. Despite criticisms about the process, studies have found that it is still valued by researchers, with rigorous peer review being rated by authors as the most important service they expect to receive when paying to have their papers published open access. The expectations of peer review and what it can achieve need, however, to be realistic. Peer review is also only as good and effective as the people managing the process, and the large variation in standards that exists is one of the reasons some of the research and related communities have become critical of and disillusioned with the traditional model of peer review. The role of the editor is critical. All editors must act as proper editors, not just moving manuscripts automatically through the various stages, but making critical judgements throughout the process to reach sound and unbiased editorial decisions. New models and innovations in peer review are appearing. Many issues, however, remain the same: rigorous procedures and high ethical standards should be in place, those responsible for making decisions and managing the process need to be trained to equip them for their roles and responsibilities, and systems need to be adapted to deal with new challenges such as the increasing amounts of data being generated and needing to be taken into account when assessing the validity and soundness of work and the conclusions being drawn.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

The challenge of recruiting peer reviewers from one medical journal’s perspective
Christopher J. Peterson, Cynthia Orticio, Kenneth Nugent
Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings.2022; 35(3): 394. CrossRef
Effective Peer Review: Who, Where, or What?
Russell P. Hall
JID Innovations.2022; 2(6): 100162. CrossRef
JID Innovations and Peer Review
Russell P. Hall
JID Innovations.2021; 1(3): 100056. CrossRef
Enhancing reproducibility: Failures from Reproducibility Initiatives underline core challenges
Kevin Mullane, Michael Williams
Biochemical Pharmacology.2017; 138: 7. CrossRef
Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers
Tony Ross-Hellauer, Arvid Deppe, Birgit Schmidt, Jelte M. Wicherts
PLOS ONE.2017; 12(12): e0189311. CrossRef
Editing and publishing scholarly journals in the internet age
Kihong Kim
Science Editing.2014; 1(1): 2. CrossRef
The big picture: scholarly publishing trends 2014
Pippa Smart
Science Editing.2014; 1(2): 52. CrossRef

First
Prev
Page of 1
Next
Last

Search