Science Editing

Original Article

Ethical guidelines for the use of generative artificial intelligence and artificial intelligence-assisted tools in scholarly publishing: a thematic analysis: Adéle da Veiga; Sci Ed. 2025;12(1):28-34. Published online February 5, 2025; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.352

1,128 View
102 Download

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material: Purpose
This analysis aims to propose guidelines for artificial intelligence (AI) research ethics in scientific publications, intending to inform publishers and academic institutional policies in order to guide them toward a coherent and consistent approach to AI research ethics.
Methods
A literature-based thematic analysis was conducted. The study reviewed the publication policies of the top 10 journal publishers addressing the use of AI in scholarly publications as of October 2024. Thematic analysis using Atlas.ti identified themes and subthemes across the documents, which were consolidated into proposed research ethics guidelines for using generative AI and AI-assisted tools in scholarly publications.
Results
The analysis revealed inconsistencies among publishers’ policies on AI use in research and publications. AI-assisted tools for grammar and formatting are generally accepted, but positions vary regarding generative AI tools used in pre-writing and research methods. Key themes identified include author accountability, human oversight, recognized and unrecognized uses of AI tools, and the necessity for transparency in disclosing AI usage. All publishers agree that AI tools cannot be listed as authors. Concerns involve biases, quality and reliability issues, compliance with intellectual property rights, and limitations of AI detection tools.
Conclusion
The article highlights the significant knowledge gap and inconsistencies in guidelines for AI use in scientific research. There is an urgent need for unified ethical standards, and guidelines are proposed for distinguishing between the accepted use of AI-assisted tools and the cautious use of generative AI tools.

Case Study

Mentorship program to elevate journal quality and rankings in Indonesia: a case study: Ferry Efendi, Hery Purnobasuki, Dessy Harisanty, Diyah Alinia Oktariningtias, Sarah Khairunnisa; Sci Ed. 2024;11(2):149-154. Published online August 20, 2024; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.344

1,626 View
113 Download
1 Web of Science
1 Crossref

This article explores the best practices of mentorship programs in all journals at Universitas Airlangga. The university has established a journal mentoring team, as mandated by the rector’s regulation, which is responsible for guiding journals through preparation, submission, management, policy, and overall quality improvement. A case study was conducted to explore the mentoring mechanisms at Universitas Airlangga. Mentors were selected from among experienced editors at the university, each with a distinguished background in managing their own journals. The mentorship program successfully led to the indexing of 14 journals in Scopus, one in Web of Science (WoS), 85 in the Science and Technology Index (SINTA), and 60 in Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). The strategies used can be shared with other universities to assist their journal editors. The mentorship program at Universitas Airlangga has significantly improved the quality and international visibility of its academic journals. This is evidenced by the successful indexing of numerous journals in prestigious databases including Scopus, WoS, SINTA, and DOAJ. The structured mentoring, clear targets, and comprehensive institutional support were instrumental in achieving these results. This model serves as a scalable best practice for other universities seeking to improve their journal quality and global standing.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

The promotion of university journals published by Universitas Diponegoro, Indonesia, from 2018 to 2024: a descriptive study
Eko Didik Widianto, Hadiyanto, Teddy Mantoro, Raka Sindu Wardoyo
Science Editing.2025; 12(1): 43. CrossRef

Original Articles

Copyright policies of science and engineering open access journals indexed in Science Citation Index Expanded or Scopus, published by Korean academic societies: 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; Correction in: Sci Ed 2025;12(1):89

3,784 View
143 Download
1 Crossref

Abstract PDF

Purpose
This article explores the challenges related to copyright policies in the context of science and engineering open access (OA) journals based in Korea.
Methods
From Korea Citation Index (KCI)-listed science and engineering journals in English indexed in Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) or Scopus, 162 journals were identified as of January 10, 2024. Of these, 104 were published independently by Korean academic societies. All were open access. Data were collected from the KCI database and verified via each journal’s website. Discrepancies were resolved using the journal website information.
Results
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.
Conclusion
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.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Correction to “Copyright policies of science and engineering open access journals indexed in Science Citation Index Expanded or Scopus, published by Korean academic societies”

Science Editing.2025; 12(1): 89. CrossRef

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; Sci Ed. 2023;10(2):141-148. Published online August 17, 2023; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.316

3,056 View
234 Download

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material: Purpose
This study aimed to ascertain the attitudes of Korean scholarly journal editors and publishers toward research data sharing policies and the publication of data papers through a survey.
Methods
Between May 16 and June 16, 2023, a SurveyMonkey survey link was distributed to 388 societies, including 270 member societies of the Korean Council of Science Editors and 118 societies that used an e-submission system operated by the Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information. A total of 78 societies (20.1%) responded, from which 72 responses (18.6%) were analyzed after excluding invalid responses.
Results
Out of the representatives of 72 journals, 20 editors or publishers (27.8%) declared a data sharing policy. Those journals that did not have such a policy often expressed uncertainty about their future plans regarding this issue. A common concern was a potential decrease in manuscript submissions, primarily due to the increased workload this policy might impose on editors and manuscript editors. Four respondents (5.6%) had published data papers, with two of them including this as a publication type in their author guidelines. Concerns about copyright and data licensing were cited as drawbacks to publishing data papers. However, the expansion of publication types and the promotion of data reuse were viewed as benefits.
Conclusion
Korean scholarly journal editors’ and publishers’ attitudes toward data sharing policy and publishing data papers are not yet favorable. More training courses are needed to raise awareness of data sharing platforms and emphasize the need for research data sharing and data papers.

Preprint acceptance policies of Asian academic society journals in 2020: Ye Jin Choi, Hyung Wook Choi, Soon Kim; Sci Ed. 2021;8(1):10-17. Published online February 20, 2021; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.224

6,021 View
150 Download
6 Web of Science
7 Crossref

Abstract PDF

Purpose
In the current era of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, the trend of sharing new research results through preprint platforms is receiving more attention from researchers than ever before. Preprints have been recognized as a primary and essential method to disseminate new findings faster than traditional publications. Therefore, it has become necessary for journals and editors to acknowledge these changes, prepare preprint policies, and notify authors accordingly. This study aimed to review the status of preprint policies of international publishers and Asian academic society journals.
Methods
In total, 383 Asian academic society journals registered in Science Citation Index Expanded were selected as a dataset for analysis between December 11, 2020 and January 8, 2021. Three different parameters were investigated whether each journal had a preprint policy, whether journals allowed preprint manuscripts to be submitted, and whether preprint articles were allowed to be included in the references.
Results
Among the 383 Asian academic society journals from 22 countries, only 28 journals accepted preprint manuscripts, and eight allowed the use of preprint manuscripts as references. Japan had the most journals that both had preprint policies and accepted preprint manuscripts, with 13 journals, followed by Korea with 10 journals.
Conclusion
Despite the limitations of this study, the results show that editors and journal staff should understand the current preprint trend and try to prepare preprint policies that best meet the journals’ and authors’ interests.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Journal metrics, document network, and conceptual and social structures of the Korean Journal of Anesthesiology from 2017 to July 2022: a bibliometric study
Sun Huh
Korean Journal of Anesthesiology.2023; 76(1): 3. CrossRef
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
Promotion to Top-Tier Journal and Development Strategy of the Annals of Laboratory Medicine for Strengthening its Leadership in the Medical Laboratory Technology Category: A Bibliometric Study
Sun Huh
Annals of Laboratory Medicine.2022; 42(3): 321. CrossRef
The evolution, benefits, and challenges of preprints and their interaction with journals
Pippa Smart
Science Editing.2022; 9(1): 79. CrossRef
Congratulations on Child Health Nursing Research becoming a PubMed Central journal and reflections on its significance
Sun Huh
Child Health Nursing Research.2022; 28(1): 1. CrossRef
Korean editors’ and researchers’ experiences with preprints and attitudes towards preprint policies
Hyun Jung Yi, Sun Huh
Science Editing.2021; 8(1): 4. CrossRef
Document Network and Conceptual and Social Structures of Clinical Endoscopy from 2015 to July 2021 Based on the Web of Science Core Collection: A Bibliometric Study
Sun Huh
Clinical Endoscopy.2021; 54(5): 641. CrossRef

Korean editors’ and researchers’ experiences with preprints and attitudes towards preprint policies: Hyun Jung Yi, Sun Huh; Sci Ed. 2021;8(1):4-9. Published online February 20, 2021; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.223

6,508 View
205 Download
7 Web of Science
8 Crossref

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material

Purpose
This study investigated editors’ and researcher’s experiences with preprints and their attitudes towards preprint policies in Korea.
Methods
From December 30, 2019 to January 10, 2020, a Google Forms survey was mailed to members of the Korean Council of Science Editors and the Korean Federation of Science and Technology Societies. The 16 survey items included two demographic items, six items on experience with preprints, five 5-point Likert-scale items on attitudes towards preprints, and three items on advantages and disadvantages.
Results
Out of 365 respondents, 56 had deposited their manuscripts on preprint servers, while 49 stated that they allowed preprints in their journals. More than half of the respondents expressed favorable attitudes towards prioritizing preprint deposition, promotion of open access, rapid feedback on preprints, earlier citations, and evidence of research work. Responders in engineering had more experience with the concept of preprints, and were more likely to have heard about preprint servers and preprint deposition by other researchers, than those in medicine. Half of the editors disagreed with the need for preprints, for reasons including a lack of scientific integrity, stealing ideas/scooping data, priority issues regarding research ideas, and copyright problems.
Conclusion
The above results showed that preprints are still not actively used in Korea. Although experiences with preprints were not widespread, more than half of the respondents showed favorable attitudes towards preprints. More of a consensus should emerge for preprint policies to be accepted by editors in Korea.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Preprint servers and journals: rivals or allies?
Natascha Chtena, Juan Pablo Alperin, Stephen Pinfield, Alice Fleerackers, Irene V. Pasquetto
Journal of Documentation.2025;[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
Promotion to Top-Tier Journal and Development Strategy of the Annals of Laboratory Medicine for Strengthening its Leadership in the Medical Laboratory Technology Category: A Bibliometric Study
Sun Huh
Annals of Laboratory Medicine.2022; 42(3): 321. CrossRef
Congratulations on Child Health Nursing Research becoming a PubMed Central journal and reflections on its significance
Sun Huh
Child Health Nursing Research.2022; 28(1): 1. CrossRef
The evolution, benefits, and challenges of preprints and their interaction with journals
Pippa Smart
Science Editing.2022; 9(1): 79. CrossRef
Preprint citation practice in PLOS
Marc Bertin, Iana Atanassova
Scientometrics.2022; 127(12): 6895. CrossRef
Attitudes and practices of open data, preprinting, and peer-review—A cross sectional study on Croatian scientists
Ksenija Baždarić, Iva Vrkić, Evgenia Arh, Martina Mavrinac, Maja Gligora Marković, Lidija Bilić-Zulle, Jadranka Stojanovski, Mario Malički, Sergi Lozano
PLOS ONE.2021; 16(6): e0244529. CrossRef
Document Network and Conceptual and Social Structures of Clinical Endoscopy from 2015 to July 2021 Based on the Web of Science Core Collection: A Bibliometric Study
Sun Huh
Clinical Endoscopy.2021; 54(5): 641. CrossRef

Status of the data sharing policies of scholarly journals published in Brazil, France, and Korea and listed in both the 2018 Scimago Journal and Country Ranking and the Web of Science: Geum Hee Jeong; Sci Ed. 2020;7(2):136-141. Published online August 20, 2020; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.208

7,191 View
110 Download
9 Web of Science
8 Crossref

Abstract PDF

Purpose
The present study analyzed the current status of the data sharing policies of journals published in Brazil, France, and Korea that were listed in the 2018 Scimago Journal and Country Ranking and Web of Science Core Collection.
Methods
Web of Science journals were selected from the 2018 Scimago Journal and Country Ranking. The homepages of all target journals were searched for the presence of statements on data sharing policies, including clinical trial data sharing policies, the level of the policies, and actual statements of data availability in articles.
Results
Out of 565 journals from these three countries, 118 (20.9%) had an optional data sharing policy, and one had a mandatory data sharing policy. Harvard Dataverse was the repository of one journal. The number of journals that had adopted a data sharing policy was 11 (6.7%) for Brazil, 64 (27.6%) for France, and 44 (25.9%) for Korea. One journal from Brazil and 20 journals from Korea had adopted clinical trial data sharing policies in accordance with the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Statements of data sharing were found in articles from two journals.
Conclusion
Journals from France and Korea adopted data sharing policies more actively than those from Brazil. However, the actual implementation of these policies through descriptions of data availability in articles remains rare. In many journals that appear to have data sharing policies, those policies may just reflect a standard description by the publisher, especially in France. Actual data sharing was not found to be frequent.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Analyzing Data Sharing Policies in Library and Information Science: Journal Metrics, Open Access Status, and Publisher Volume
Eungi Kim, Kristine Joy Tabogoc, Jang Won Chae
Publications.2024; 12(4): 39. CrossRef
Research data policy: a library and information science publishers’ perspective
Kavya Asok, Dinesh Kumar Gupta, Prashant Shrivastava
Quality & Quantity.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Journal metrics, document network, and conceptual and social structures of the Korean Journal of Anesthesiology from 2017 to July 2022: a bibliometric study
Sun Huh
Korean Journal of Anesthesiology.2023; 76(1): 3. CrossRef
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
Research data policies of journals in the Chinese Science Citation Database based on the language, publisher, discipline, access model and metrics
Yu Wang, Beibei Chen, Liangbin Zhao, Yuanxiang Zeng
Learned Publishing.2022; 35(1): 30. CrossRef
Congratulations on Child Health Nursing Research becoming a PubMed Central journal and reflections on its significance
Sun Huh
Child Health Nursing Research.2022; 28(1): 1. CrossRef
Two international public platforms for the exposure of Archives of Plastic Surgery to worldwide researchers and surgeons: PubMed Central and Crossref
Sun Huh
Archives of Plastic Surgery.2020; 47(5): 377. CrossRef
How Annals of Dermatology Has Improved the Scientific Quality and Ethical Standards of its Articles in the Two-Year Period since October 2018
Sun Huh
Annals of Dermatology.2020; 32(5): 353. CrossRef

Case Studys

Analysis of Korean journals rejected by Scopus since 2011: Hyunju Jang; Sci Ed. 2020;7(1):50-54. Published online February 20, 2020; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.189

5,422 View
150 Download

Abstract PDF: This paper aims to provide publishers and societies who plan to apply for their journals to be listed in Scopus with critical guidelines to evaluate their performance from an objective, globally-informed perspective. It presents a qualitative case study of how applications of Korean journals to Scopus have been evaluated over a 9-year period (2011–2019). A content analysis was conducted of 106 applications that were rejected by the Content Selection and Advisory Board, according to a combination of 14 quantitative and qualitative selection criteria. This case study was used to categorize instances of failure and to illustrate practical strategies for local journals to use when applying to Scopus based on the lessons to be learned from rejected cases. The results of the analysis show that local journals should enhance the quality of the articles they publish, review why the journal should be considered international, and clearly address editorial policies and the concept, scope, and strategies of the journal.

Arbitral action and preventive methods against predatory journal practice: Sung Pil Park, Eric Yong Joong Lee, Ji Hee Suh; Sci Ed. 2018;5(1):49-52. Published online February 19, 2018; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.118

13,466 View
233 Download
1 Web of Science
1 Crossref

Abstract PDF

As open access model of journal publication increases, predatory journals, which deceive scholars to publish journals in fake database websites and exploit them for publishing fee, is also increasing. There are two types of predatory journals. First, journal hijacking and cybersquatting generally create fake database website by mimicking authentic database website, thereby defrauding scholars for publication fee. Second, journal phishing use scam emails to steal scholars’ personal information. If scholars suffered damage from predatory journals, scholars can take either arbitral or judicial actions. Arbitral action follows arbitrational resolution process termed Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy. Scholars can join Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy proceeding with legal entity that has right to authentic database website, which will result in cancellation or transfer of fake database website. In contrast, scholars can take judicial action under Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, which may help scholars to recover an actual monetary damage from predatory journals. Nonetheless, taking precaution to avoid predatory journals is the best course of action, rather than going through arduous cure procedures. Scholars may prevent predatory journals by carefully examining fake database website names or email addresses, or observing unreasonable number of published article issues in predatory journal websites.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

How to respond to and what to do for papers published in predatory journals?
Aamir Raoof Memon
Science Editing.2018; 5(2): 146. CrossRef

Taiwan Government’s scientific journal supporting policy: Hsiu-Ching Hsu, Wei-Hsing Tuan; Sci Ed. 2016;3(2):105-108. Published online August 20, 2016; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.74

11,090 View
158 Download
2 Web of Science
1 Crossref

Abstract PDF

This report discloses the journal supporting policy in Taiwan. At the moment, the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) not only gives financial support to each academic research projects but also plays an important role to the quality of many scientific journals. The MOST has established a competitive evaluation system to assess the quality of scientific journals. According to the policy of MOST, each academic association could apply financial support for one scientific journal. Around 60 journals receive support from MOST every year.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Knowledge production and internationalisation of research in Taiwan: a new watershed?
Sheng-Ju Chan, Chia-Yu Yang, Hung-Chun Tai
Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management.2020; 42(2): 245. CrossRef

First
Prev
Page of 1
Next
Last

Search