Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Science Editing : Science Editing

OPEN ACCESS
SEARCH
Search

Search

Page Path
HOME > Search
5 "War"
Filter
Filter
Article category
Keywords
Publication year
Authors
Case Study
Plagiarism detection in manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Surgical Sciences between 2020 and 2021: a case study
Florentina Mu?at, Dan Nicolae P?duraru, Alexandra Bolocan, Daniel Ion, Alexandru Constantinescu, Octavian Andronic
Sci Ed. 2023;10(2):149-153.   Published online August 17, 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.313
  • 2,133 View
  • 250 Download
AbstractAbstract PDFSupplementary Material
The aim of this study was to share our experience with plagiarism detection in manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Surgical Sciences, a Romania-based medical journal, between 2020 and 2021. We analyzed similarity score reports from 200 articles submitted consecutively for publication between 2020 and 2021 generated by PlagScan, a software tool for plagiarism detection. The similarity score ranged from 0% to 92.4%, and 45 articles presented scores over 25.0%. According to PlagScan’s results, more than half of the submitted articles had a similarity score of more than 10% and one-third of them had a similarity score above 20%. Among submitted manuscripts with a similarity score of less than 20%, a larger proportion of the original research and review manuscripts than case reports used more than 10 sources. All articles with a similarity score below 20% were evaluated qualitatively before the final decision of rejection.
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
  • 4,127 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
The opinions of Indian dental faculty members on harmonizing manuscript preparation and the submission guidelines of journals
Gadde Praveen, Harsha GVD, Swati G Naidu, Dharani ASD
Sci Ed. 2022;9(1):15-21.   Published online February 20, 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.258
  • 5,694 View
  • 268 Download
  • 2 Web of Science
  • 2 Crossref
AbstractAbstract PDFSupplementary Material
Purpose: Authors of scholarly writing are underrepresented in discussions about improving the academic publishing system. The objective of this study was to assess the possibility of harmonizing manuscript preparation and the submission guidelines of journals by assessing the opinions of dental faculty members who worked in the state of Andhra Pradesh, India.
Methods
A cross-sectional survey of 1,286 participants from 16 dental schools in Andhra Pradesh was conducted from March 15, 2021 to April 15, 2021. The questionnaire addressed the participants’ demographic details and perspectives on the guidelines for manuscript preparation and the need to harmonize those guidelines with the publication process. The online questionnaire was generated using Google Forms and consisted of six dichotomous, one multiple-choice, and seven Likert scale items. Descriptive statistics were obtained.
Results
Of the 894 (69.5%) dental faculty members who responded, 448 (50.1%) were not aware of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors’ guidelines for manuscript preparation and submission. During the manuscript revision process, 792 (95.5%) had experienced difficulty with the variation in author guidelines for each journal, especially the guidelines for formatting tables, reference style, and citation of references in-text. The idea of a standardized template for manuscript preparation and submission was supported by 800 respondents (86.7%).
Conclusion
Dental faculty members in India experienced difficulty in manuscript preparation for medical journals due to the differing editorial policies among journals. Therefore, a standardized template providing uniformity in style and format is needed.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • Research publications of Australia’s natural history museums, 1981–2020: Enduring relevance in a changing world
    Tayla A. Green, Pat A. Hutchings, Fiona R. Scarff, James R. Tweedley, Michael C. Calver, Claudia Noemi González Brambila
    PLOS ONE.2023; 18(6): e0287659.     CrossRef
  • Why consistent, clear, and uniform instructions for authors are required
    Jean Iwaz
    Science Editing.2022; 9(2): 142.     CrossRef
Training Material
Search engines and software for manuscript editing
Yeonwook Kim
Sci Ed. 2020;7(1):88-93.   Published online February 20, 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.199
  • 5,257 View
  • 97 Download
AbstractAbstract PDF
In recent years, manuscript editing has become extremely important for academic journals. Using appropriate software for manuscript editing results in improved work efficiency and increased accuracy; therefore, this article aimed to introduce search engines and software that can be used for manuscript editing. First, a variety of search engines and academic databases can be used to reduce errors and to create accurate references. Google, the world’s leading search engine, provides users with information with the highest probability of accuracy, regardless of the reference language or the search term. If it is not possible to find certain information on Google, one can consult WorldCat, PubMed, Naver Academic, KoreaScience, Research Information Sharing Service, DBpia, Crossref, and Edifix. In particular, Naver Academic provides search results for some materials that cannot be found on Google. Second, PerfectIt facilitates the correction of errors that occur frequently in English-language documents. Finally, Grammarly is a helpful tool for checking and correcting grammar and spelling errors. As the academic publishing environment changes, the role and demands of manuscript editors are also changing. In a fast-paced environment, the software and search engines discussed herein are highly useful tools for manuscript editing.
Original Article
Language policy and the disengagement of the international academic elite
John Harbord
Sci Ed. 2018;5(1):32-38.   Published online February 19, 2018
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.115
  • 13,389 View
  • 217 Download
  • 5 Web of Science
  • 2 Crossref
AbstractAbstract PDF
This paper explores the phenomena of academic multiliteracy (the habit of writing academically in more than one language) and of L2 monoliteracy (that of only writing academically in a language that is not one’s own) and their impact on policy. Based on interviews and surveys conducted with 33 multiliterate and 15 L2 monoliterate scholars connected to one university in Central Europe between 2010 and 2014, I show how incentives to publish in English constructed by educational policies often push ambitious young researchers whose first language is not English away from engaging in academic and societal debates in their first language community. They may thus disengage from the national community, with negative consequences for the interaction between global and local that is essential for good governance. To overcome the difficulty young scholars encounter in writing in their native languages, they should be taught writing both in their native language and in English. Furthermore, university and state policies should reward scholars for writing not only for the international community but also for local society.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • EMI, power and expressivism
    René Gabriëls, Robert Wilkinson
    Journal of English-Medium Instruction.2024; 3(1): 1.     CrossRef
  • Journal metrics of Clinical and Molecular Hepatology based on the Web of Science Core Collection
    Sun Huh
    Clinical and Molecular Hepatology.2018; 24(2): 137.     CrossRef

Science Editing : Science Editing