Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Science Editing : Science Editing

OPEN ACCESS
SEARCH
Search

Search

Page Path
HOME > Search
9 "Scholarly communication"
Filter
Filter
Article category
Keywords
Publication year
Authors
Funded articles
Original Articles
Impact and perceived value of the revolutionary advent of artificial intelligence in research and publishing among researchers: a survey-based descriptive study
Riya Thomas, Uttkarsha Bhosale, Kriti Shukla, Anupama Kapadia
Sci Ed. 2023;10(1):27-34.   Published online February 16, 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.294
  • 3,609 View
  • 347 Download
  • 1 Web of Science
  • 2 Crossref
AbstractAbstract PDFSupplementary Material
Purpose: This study was conducted to understand the perceptions and awareness of artificial intelligence (AI) in the academic publishing landscape.
Methods
We conducted a global survey entitled “Role and impact of AI on the future of academic publishing” to understand the impact of the AI wave in the scholarly publishing domain. This English-language survey was open to all researchers, authors, editors, publishers, and other stakeholders in the scholarly community. Conducted between August and October 2021, the survey received responses from around 212 universities across 54 countries.
Results
Out of 365 respondents, about 93% belonged to the age groups of 18–34 and 35–54 years. While 50% of the respondents selected plagiarism detection as the most widely known AI-based application, image recognition (42%), data analytics (40%), and language enhancement (39%) were some other known applications of AI. The respondents also expressed the opinion that the academic publishing landscape will significantly benefit from AI. However, the major challenges restraining the large-scale adoption of AI, as expressed by 93% of the respondents, were limited knowledge and expertise, as well as difficulties in integrating AI-based solutions into existing IT infrastructure.
Conclusion
The survey responses reflected the necessity of AI in research and publishing. This study suggests possible ways to support a smooth transition. This can be best achieved by educating and creating awareness to ease possible fears and hesitation, and to actualize the promising benefits of AI.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • 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
  • 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
Science beyond English: to what extent do Vietnamese scholars publish in non-English languages?
Van Luong Nguyen, Dinh-Hai Luong, Hiep-Hung Pham
Sci Ed. 2022;9(2):105-111.   Published online August 19, 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.275
  • 2,634 View
  • 272 Download
AbstractAbstract PDFSupplementary Material
Purpose: Although English has become the lingua franca for scholarly communication, scholars worldwide publish in other languages. Nevertheless, few studies have answered the question, “To what extent do scholars publish in non-English languages?” This study addresses that question, limiting its scope to Vietnamese scholars.
Methods
We reviewed 833 non-English documents authored by at least one scholar from Vietnam between 1960 and 2021, exploring aspects such as the language of the publication, the year of publication, the document type, number of document citations, the most prolific and most cited authors, and the primary research themes.
Results
Among non-English languages, French, Russian, and Chinese were the three most often selected by Vietnamese scholars for their publications. The year 2015 was a pivotal year when non-English publications from Vietnam significantly increased. Journal articles were the most common type of document, and the most frequent subject areas were medicine, agricultural and biological sciences, engineering, energy, and environmental science.
Conclusion
Although English is the primary language of science, the number of non-English documents by Vietnamese researchers has been increasing. This suggests that collaborative work between Vietnamese researchers and foreign researchers has also increased.
Training Materials
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
  • 5,486 View
  • 314 Download
  • 8 Web of Science
  • 13 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; : 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
Participation Reports help Crossref members drive research further
Anna Tolwinska
Sci Ed. 2021;8(2):180-185.   Published online August 20, 2021
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.253
  • 3,820 View
  • 107 Download
  • 1 Web of Science
  • 1 Crossref
AbstractAbstract PDF
This article aims to explain the key metadata elements listed in Participation Reports, why it’s important to check them regularly, and how Crossref members can improve their scores. Crossref members register a lot of metadata in Crossref. That metadata is machine-readable, standardized, and then shared across discovery services and author tools. This is important because richer metadata makes content more discoverable and useful to the scholarly community. It’s not always easy to know what metadata Crossref members register in Crossref. This is why Crossref created an easy-to-use tool called Participation Reports to show editors, and researchers the key metadata elements Crossref members register to make their content more useful. The key metadata elements include references and whether they are set to open, ORCID iDs, funding information, Crossmark metadata, licenses, full-text URLs for text-mining, and Similarity Check indexing, as well as abstracts. ROR IDs (Research Organization Registry Identifiers), that identify institutions will be added in the future. This data was always available through the Crossref ’s REST API (Representational State Transfer Application Programming Interface) but is now visualized in Participation Reports. To improve scores, editors should encourage authors to submit ORCIDs in their manuscripts and publishers should register as much metadata as possible to help drive research further.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • Reflections on 4 years in the role of a Crossref ambassador in Korea
    Jae Hwa Chang
    Science Editing.2022; 9(1): 69.     CrossRef
Case Studys
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
  • 5,439 View
  • 150 Download
  • 2 Web of Science
  • 5 Crossref
AbstractAbstract 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
Manuscript Exchange Common Approach and Journal Article Tag Suite (JATS) compatibility: a case study utilizing the JATS Compatibility Meta Model
Laura Randall, Sally Ubnoske
Sci Ed. 2021;8(1):93-97.   Published online February 20, 2021
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.235
  • 3,998 View
  • 62 Download
AbstractAbstract PDFSupplementary Material
The National Information Standards Organization (NISO) Manuscript Exchange Common Approach (MECA) project is a cross-organization industry initiative to develop a common approach to manuscript transfer that can be adopted across the scholarly publishing industry. MECA establishes a vocabulary set that includes transfer, review, and manifest models. These models are designed to work with different article XML schemas, including the latest NISO Journal Article Tag Suite (JATS) standard (v1.2). In order to avoid conflicts between these project vocabularies and the JATS, we reviewed the MECA vocabularies against the NISO JATS Compatibility Meta Model (v0.7). This paper describes the review and analysis of the MECA schemas against the JATS Meta Model, how we documented the analysis, and the recommendations we made to resolve issues revealed by the analysis. It includes the documentation we produced to communicate the results of the analysis and what actions we took to move forward with the project, including both changes to the schemas and requests for changes in the JATS. We hope sharing our experiences with this process will help others who are trying to do the same.
Training Material
How to archive scholarly journals from the Republic of Korea in the National Library of Korea
Sun Huh
Sci Ed. 2019;6(2):171-174.   Published online August 19, 2019
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.180
  • 5,028 View
  • 112 Download
AbstractAbstract PDFSupplementary Material
According to the policies of a number of indexing database agencies and the Principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing 3rd version, archiving of scholarly journal articles is mandatory for editors and publishers. Furthermore, publishers in Korea have been required to deposit journal article files in the National Library of Korea since February 2016 by law. This study presents background information on archiving sites and how to deposit digital files in the Library’s archive. Although some archiving sites for scholarly journals have been developed internationally, it may be burdensome for publishers in Korea (almost all of which are academic societies) to use those sites to deposit digital files because a deposit fee is required by some agencies. Furthermore, PubMed Central, maintained by the United States National Library of Medicine, accepts only English-language biomedical journals. In contrast, it is possible for publishers to deposit articles in the National Library of Korea by uploading files without any fees, regardless of the journal language. Furthermore, publishers can select the access policy of their journals. All journal publishers and editors in Korea are recommended to utilize the archiving site of the National Library of Korea to preserve their journal articles.
Original Articles
Network analysis of scientific collaboration in North Korea
Hyung Wook Choi, Ye Jin Choi, Soon Kim
Sci Ed. 2019;6(1):25-34.   Published online February 20, 2019
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.152
  • 6,252 View
  • 177 Download
  • 6 Web of Science
  • 7 Crossref
AbstractAbstract PDF
Purpose: Although North Korea invests in scientific research, few selected research results are published to international journals. However, the latest peaceful political developments around North Korea have increased concerns about how they will support international scientific cooperation. This study aims to analyze the scientific collaboration and intellectual structure of North Korean researchers.
Methods
We conducted a co-word analysis with author keywords and author names using the Web of Science records for 1976–2018 to observe the changes in research trends in North Korea. The structure of the median centrality of words and the parallel nearest neighbor clustering methods were used to visualize the results.
Results
The analysis of 55 final keywords confirms that the corresponding network is composed of 17 sub-clusters under four areas. As a result of the investigation of 56 final author names, the corresponding network is composed of 15 sub-clusters under four areas.
Conclusion
As more accurate information is needed about collaboration partners to ensure successful cooperation, this analysis result can support getting an overview of North Korea’s research community and their research network.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • 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
    Science Editing.2024; 11(1): 38.     CrossRef
  • Tracking North Korean economic transformation and trends in economic research
    Justin V. Hastings, Haneol Lee
    Asia and the Global Economy.2023; 3(1): 100050.     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
  • Mapping the development of North Korea's domestic nuclear research networks
    Philip Baxter, Justin V. Hastings, Philseo Kim, Man‐Sung Yim
    Review of Policy Research.2022; 39(2): 219.     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
  • A critical examination of international research conducted by North Korean authors: Increasing trends of collaborative research between China and North Korea
    Eungi Kim, Eun Sil Kim
    Scientometrics.2020; 124(1): 429.     CrossRef
  • Bibliometric analysis of research on the maize based on top papers during 2009-2019
    Bao-Zhong Yuan, Jie Sun
    COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management.2020; 14(1): 75.     CrossRef
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
  • 20,679 View
  • 358 Download
  • 7 Web of Science
  • 6 Crossref
AbstractAbstract 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

Science Editing : Science Editing