Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Science Editing : Science Editing

OPEN ACCESS
SEARCH
Search

Most cited articles

Page Path
HOME > Browse articles > Most cited articles
25 Most cited articles
Filter
Filter
Article category
Keywords
Publication year
Authors
Funded articles

From articles published in Science Editing during the past two years (2022 ~ ).

Training Material
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
  • 5,549 View
  • 318 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
Editorial
Emergence of the metaverse and ChatGPT in journal publishing after the COVID-19 pandemic
Sun Huh
Sci Ed. 2023;10(1):1-4.   Published online February 16, 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.290
  • 4,349 View
  • 380 Download
  • 10 Web of Science
  • 11 Crossref
PDFSupplementary Material

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • Factors affecting accounting students’ misuse of chatgpt: an application of the fraud triangle theory
    Hashem Alshurafat, Mohannad Obeid Al Shbail, Allam Hamdan, Ahmad Al-Dmour, Waed Ensour
    Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting.2024; 22(2): 274.     CrossRef
  • A scoping review of ChatGPT's role in healthcare education and research
    Shefaly Shorey, Citra Mattar, Travis Lanz-Brian Pereira, Mahesh Choolani
    Nurse Education Today.2024; 135: 106121.     CrossRef
  • Macao's academic book publishing industry: A SWOT and PEST analysis
    Li Jiagui, Johnny F. I. Lam
    Learned Publishing.2024; 37(2): 98.     CrossRef
  • AI tools can improve equity in science
    Violeta Berdejo-Espinola, Tatsuya Amano
    Science.2023; 379(6636): 991.     CrossRef
  • Can we trust AI chatbots’ answers about disease diagnosis and patient care?
    Sun Huh
    Journal of the Korean Medical Association.2023; 66(4): 218.     CrossRef
  • Can the Metaverse and Its Associated Digital Tools and Technologies Provide an Opportunity for Destinations to Address the Vulnerability of Overtourism?
    Nansy Kouroupi, Theodore Metaxas
    Tourism and Hospitality.2023; 4(2): 355.     CrossRef
  • Decoding ChatGPT: A taxonomy of existing research, current challenges, and possible future directions
    Shahab Saquib Sohail, Faiza Farhat, Yassine Himeur, Mohammad Nadeem, Dag Øivind Madsen, Yashbir Singh, Shadi Atalla, Wathiq Mansoor
    Journal of King Saud University - Computer and Information Sciences.2023; 35(8): 101675.     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
  • Slow Writing with ChatGPT: Turning the Hype into a Right Way Forward
    Chitnarong Sirisathitkul
    Postdigital Science and Education.2023;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Application of artificial intelligence chatbots, including ChatGPT, in education, scholarly work, programming, and content generation and its prospects: a narrative review
    Tae Won Kim
    Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions.2023; 20: 38.     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
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
  • 5,416 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
Original Article
Charting variety, scope, and impact of open access diamond journals in various disciplines and regions: a survey-based observational study
Sci Ed. 2022;9(2):120-135.   Published online August 19, 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.277
  • 4,138 View
  • 294 Download
  • 4 Web of Science
  • 4 Crossref
AbstractAbstract PDFSupplementary Material
Purpose: The variety, scope, and impact of open access (OA) diamond journals across disciplines and regions from July 22 to September 11, 2020 were charted to characterize the current OA diamond landscape.
Methods
The total number of diamond journals was estimated, including those outside the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). The distribution across regions, disciplines, and publisher types was described. The scope of journals in terms of authorship and readership was investigated. Information was collected on linguistic diversity, journal dynamics and life cycle, and their visibility in scholarly databases.
Results
The number of OA diamond journals is estimated to be 29,000. OA diamond journals are estimated to publish 356,000 articles per year. The OA diamond sector is diverse in terms of regions (45% in Europe, 25% in Latin America, 16% in Asia, and 5% in the United States/Canada) and disciplines (60% humanities and social sciences, 22% sciences, and 17% medicine). More than 70% of OA diamond journals are published by university-owned publishers, including university presses. The majority of OA diamond journals are small, publishing fewer than 25 articles a year. English (1,210), Spanish (492), and French (342) are the most common languages of the main texts. Out of 1,619 journals, 1,025 (63.3%) are indexed in DOAJ, 492 (30.4%) in Scopus, and 321 (19.8%) in Web of Science.
Conclusion
The patterns and trends reported herein provide insights into the diversity and importance of the OA diamond journal landscape and the accompanying opportunities and challenges in supporting this publishing model.

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
  • How open access diamond journals comply with industry standards exemplified by Plan S technical requirements

    Science Editing.2023; 10(1): 35.     CrossRef
  • Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions received the Journal Impact Factor, 4.4 for the first time on June 28, 2023
    Sun Huh
    Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions.2023; 20: 21.     CrossRef
  • Plan S: estimating future developments
    Johan Rooryck
    Science Editing.2022; 9(2): 149.     CrossRef
Editorial
Metaverse in journal publishing
Kihong Kim
Sci Ed. 2022;9(1):1-2.   Published online February 20, 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.256
  • 5,963 View
  • 230 Download
  • 2 Web of Science
  • 4 Crossref
PDF

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • Facing the challenges of metaverse: a systematic literature review from Social Sciences and Marketing and Communication
    Verónica Crespo-Pereira, Eva Sánchez-Amboage, Matías Membiela-Pollán
    El Profesional de la información.2023;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Emergence of the metaverse and ChatGPT in journal publishing after the COVID-19 pandemic
    Sun Huh
    Science Editing.2023; 10(1): 1.     CrossRef
  • Advances in Metaverse Investigation: Streams of Research and Future Agenda
    Mariapina Trunfio, Simona Rossi
    Virtual Worlds.2022; 1(2): 103.     CrossRef
  • What the Literature on Medicine, Nursing, Public Health, Midwifery, and Dentistry Reveals: An Overview of the Rapidly Approaching Metaverse
    Muhammet DAMAR
    Journal of Metaverse.2022; 2(2): 62.     CrossRef
Original Articles
Data sharing attitudes and practices of researchers in Korean government research institutes: a survey-based descriptive study
Jihyun Kim, Hyekyong Hwang, Youngim Jung, Sung-Nam Cho, Tae-Sul Seo
Sci Ed. 2023;10(1):71-77.   Published online February 16, 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.299
  • 2,035 View
  • 235 Download
  • 3 Web of Science
  • 3 Crossref
AbstractAbstract PDF
Purpose: This study explored to what extent and how researchers in five Korean government research institutes that implement research data management practices share their research data and investigated the challenges they perceive regarding data sharing.
Methods
The study collected survey data from 224 respondents by posting a link to a SurveyMonkey questionnaire on the homepage of each of the five research institutes from June 15 to 29, 2022. Descriptive statistical analyses were conducted.
Results
Among 148 respondents with data sharing experience, the majority had shared some or most of their data. Restricted data sharing within a project was more common than sharing data with outside researchers on request or making data publicly available. Sharing data directly with researchers who asked was the most common method of data sharing, while sharing data via institutional repositories was the second most common method. The most frequently cited factors impeding data sharing included the time and effort required to organize data, concerns about copyright or ownership of data, lack of recognition and reward, and concerns about data containing sensitive information.
Conclusion
Researchers need ongoing training and support on making decisions about access to data, which are nuanced rather than binary. Research institutes’ commitment to developing and maintaining institutional data repositories is also important to facilitate data sharing. To address barriers to data sharing, it is necessary to implement research data management services that help reduce effort and mitigate concerns about legal issues. Possible incentives for researchers who share data should also continue to be explored.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • 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
  • Data sharing and data governance in sub-Saharan Africa: Perspectives from researchers and scientists engaged in data-intensive research
    Siti M. Kabanda, Nezerith Cengiz, Kanshukan Rajaratnam, Bruce W. Watson, Qunita Brown, Tonya M. Esterhuizen, Keymanthri Moodley
    South African Journal of Science.2023;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Identifying key factors and actions: Initial steps in the Open Science Policy Design and Implementation Process
    Hanna Shmagun, Jangsup Shim, Jaesoo Kim, Kwang-Nam Choi, Charles Oppenheim
    Journal of Information Science.2023;[Epub]     CrossRef
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
  • 3,656 View
  • 349 Download
  • 2 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
Reviews
The current state of graphical abstracts and how to create good graphical abstracts
Jieun Lee, Jeong-Ju Yoo
Sci Ed. 2023;10(1):19-26.   Published online February 16, 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.293
  • 4,424 View
  • 395 Download
  • 3 Web of Science
  • 2 Crossref
AbstractAbstract PDF
Graphical abstracts (GAs), also known as visual abstracts, are powerful tools for communicating complex information and ideas clearly and concisely. These visual representations aim to capture the essential findings and central message of a research study, allowing the audience to understand and remember its content quickly. This review article describes the current state of GAs, including their benefits, limitations, and future directions in the development of GAs. It also presents methods and tips for producing a GA. In Korea, more than 10 medical journals have introduced GAs from 2021 to 2022. The number of citations was higher in articles with GAs than in those without GAs in the top 10 gastroenterology journals. There are five types of GAs: conceptual diagrams, flowcharts, infographics, iconographic abstracts, and photograph-like illustrations. A limitation of the GA system is the absence of a universal standard for GAs. The key steps for creating a GA are as follows: (1) start by identifying the main message; (2) choose an appropriate visual style; (3) draw an easy-to-understand graphic; (4) use colors and other design elements; and (5) request feedback. Available tools that are useful for creating GAs include Microsoft PowerPoint, Mind the Graph, Biorender, and Canva. Another effective method is collaborating with experts. Artificial intelligence will soon be able to produce GAs more efficiently from raw data or manuscripts, which will help researchers draw GAs more easily. GAs have become a crucial art for researchers to master, and their use is expected to expand in the future.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • Your message in pictures – Adding a graphical abstract to your paper
    Péter Pongrácz, Irene Camerlink
    Applied Animal Behaviour Science.2023; 263: 105946.     CrossRef
  • Current status and demand for the advancement of Clinical Endoscopy: a survey-based descriptive study
    Tae Hoon Lee, Jimin Han, Gwang Ha Kim, Hyejin Han
    Science Editing.2023; 10(2): 135.     CrossRef
An algorithm for the selection of reporting guidelines
Soo Young Kim
Sci Ed. 2023;10(1):13-18.   Published online November 14, 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.287
  • 2,399 View
  • 271 Download
  • 2 Web of Science
  • 2 Crossref
AbstractAbstract PDF
A reporting guideline can be defined as “a checklist, flow diagram, or structured text to guide authors in reporting a specific type of research, developed using explicit methodology.” A reporting guideline outlines the bare minimum of information that must be presented in a research report in order to provide a transparent and understandable explanation of what was done and what was discovered. Many reporting guidelines have been developed, and it has become important to select the most appropriate reporting guideline for a manuscript. Herein, I propose an algorithm for the selection of reporting guidelines. This algorithm was developed based on the research design classification system and the content presented for major reporting guidelines through the EQUATOR (Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research) network. This algorithm asks 10 questions: “is it a protocol,” “is it secondary research,” “is it an in vivo animal study,” “is it qualitative research,” “is it economic evaluation research,” “is it a diagnostic accuracy study or prognostic research,” “is it quality improvement research,” “is it a non-comparative study,” “is it a comparative study between groups,” and “is it an experimental study?” According to the responses, 16 appropriate reporting guidelines are suggested. Using this algorithm will make it possible to select reporting guidelines rationally and transparently.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions received the Journal Impact Factor, 4.4 for the first time on June 28, 2023
    Sun Huh
    Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions.2023; 20: 21.     CrossRef
  • Why do editors of local nursing society journals strive to have their journals included in MEDLINE? A case study of the Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing
    Sun Huh
    Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing.2023; 29(3): 147.     CrossRef
Training Material
Open-source code to convert Journal Article Tag Suite Extensible Markup Language (JATS XML) to various viewers and other XML types for scholarly journal publishing
Younsang Cho
Sci Ed. 2022;9(2):162-168.   Published online August 19, 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.284
  • 3,018 View
  • 238 Download
  • 3 Web of Science
  • 2 Crossref
AbstractAbstract PDFSupplementary Material
There are many ways to use open source code to implement digital standards for scholarly journal publishing. However, providing digital services using open-source code can be a challenge, especially for small and local academic society journals. This paper provides some critical examples of using some of the many open-source code resources available to the public. Journal Article Tag Suite (JATS) Extensible Markup Language (XML) has been established as an essential tool, and is now used by most journals for digital publication. JATS XML can be converted to other viewer formats, including Extensible Hypertext Markup Language, PubReader, and EPUB 3.0. It can also be used to create dynamic interactive PDFs. It can be converted to other XMLs, incluing Crossref XML, PubMed XML, and DOAJ XML. Open-source code published on GitHub, National Information Standards Organization, and the US National Library of Medicine can be used for Crossref XML deposition for digital object identifier and Crossmark stamp registration. These examples of open-source code need to be implemented on journal websites to provide local academic journal publishers with various critical functions. This paper provides instructions on the best ways to realize these digital standards so that journal content can be provided to readers in a more friendly and effective way.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • Artificial intelligence in scholarly publishing and the role of the Korean Academy of Medical Journal Editors in the Asia-Pacific region
    Young Yoo
    Science Editing.2024;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Why do editors of local nursing society journals strive to have their journals included in MEDLINE? A case study of the Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing
    Sun Huh
    Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing.2023; 29(3): 147.     CrossRef
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
  • 4,119 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
Trends in research on clinical reasoning in nursing over the past 20 years: a bibliometric analysis
Sukwon Hahn, Young Mi Ryu
Sci Ed. 2022;9(2):112-119.   Published online August 19, 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.276
  • 3,367 View
  • 323 Download
  • 2 Web of Science
  • 2 Crossref
AbstractAbstract PDF
Purpose: Clinical reasoning is an essential component of nursing education. This study aimed to identify the trends in research on clinical reasoning in nursing over a 22-year period.
Methods
The Web of Science Core Collection was used as the target database, with the search terms “clinical reasoning,” “clinical judgement,” and “clinical decision.” The scope of the search included the subject, abstract, author’s keywords, and Keywords Plus for each article. Our literature search included journal articles from 2000 to 2021, with the subject area restricted to nursing. A total of 4,675 articles met the inclusion criteria after the removal of duplicates using digital object identifier. We used bibliometric analyses to conduct quantitative and statistical analyses of publication trends, the journals and countries with the most publications, the most productive authors, the most globally cited documents, and the most frequent keywords.
Results
In nursing, studies related to clinical reasoning have increased significantly since 2000. The most prolific country has been the United States. The journal with the most publications was the Journal of Clinical Nursing. The most productive author was Considine J, with 23 publications. The most widely cited author was Tanner CA, with 614 citations. The most frequent keywords in the literature related to clinical reasoning were “care,” “nurses,” and “decision-making,” in that order.
Conclusion
This study examined the quantitative analysis and statistics of publications related to clinical reasoning in nursing in the past 20 years using bibliographic information. This study can help guide future research on clinical reasoning for nurse educators.

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
  • Bibliographic analysis on real estate finance literature: A study on articles in Web of Science Core Collection Database
    Nurgün KOMŞUOĞLU YILMAZ
    Business Economics and Management Research Journal.2023; 6(1): 57.     CrossRef
Training Material
How to share data through Harvard Dataverse, a repository site: a case of the World Journal of Men’s Health
Hyun Jun Park
Sci Ed. 2022;9(1):85-90.   Published online February 20, 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.270
  • 3,373 View
  • 253 Download
  • 2 Web of Science
  • 2 Crossref
AbstractAbstract PDF
Data are a highly valuable asset for researchers. Earlier, researchers who conducted a study permanently owned their data. Currently, however, these data can be used as a source for performing further research. In 2018, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors presented data sharing statements for clinical trials. Although this recommendation was limited to clinical trials published in medical journals, it is a meaningful change that formalized the concept of data sharing. However, the trend of data sharing is expected to spread beyond medical journals to include a wider range of scientific journals in the near future. Correspondingly, platforms that provide storage and services to share data will gradually diversify. The World Journal of Men’s Health has adopted a clinical data sharing policy. The data deposit process to Harvard Dataverse, a well-known data repository, is as follows: first, select the type of article for data sharing; second, create an account; third, write a letter to the corresponding author; fourth, receive and validate data from the authors; fifth, upload the data to Harvard Dataverse; and sixth, add a data sharing statement to the paper. It is recommended that scientific journal editors select an appropriate platform and participate in the new trend of data sharing.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • 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
  • The utilisation of open research data repositories for storing and sharing research data in higher learning institutions in Tanzania
    Neema Florence Mosha, Patrick Ngulube
    Library Management.2023; 44(8/9): 566.     CrossRef
Essay
Role of Crossref in journal publishing over the next decade
Ed Pentz
Sci Ed. 2022;9(1):53-57.   Published online February 20, 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.263
  • 3,276 View
  • 241 Download
  • 2 Web of Science
  • 2 Crossref
PDF

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • Why do editors of local nursing society journals strive to have their journals included in MEDLINE? A case study of the Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing
    Sun Huh
    Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing.2023; 29(3): 147.     CrossRef
  • Scopus, cOAlition S, and Crossref’s views on scholarly publishing in the next 10 years
    Tae-Sul Seo
    Science Editing.2022; 9(1): 74.     CrossRef
Original Article
Changes in article share and growth by publisher and access type in Journal Citation Reports 2016, 2018, and 2020
Sang-Jun Kim, Kay Sook Park
Sci Ed. 2022;9(1):30-36.   Published online February 20, 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.260
  • 4,723 View
  • 280 Download
  • 2 Web of Science
  • 2 Crossref
AbstractAbstract PDF
Purpose: This study explored changes in the journal publishing market by publisher and access type using the major journals that publish about 95% of Journal Citation Reports (JCR) articles.
Methods
From JCR 2016, 2018, and 2020, a unique journal list by publisher was created in Excel and used to analyze the compound annual growth rate by pivot tables. In total, 10,953 major JCR journals were analyzed, focusing on publisher type, open access (OA) status, and mega journals (publishing over 1,000 articles per year).
Results
Among the 19 publishers that published over 10,000 articles per year, in JCR 2020, six large publishers published 59.6% of the articles and 13 publishers 22.5%. The other publishers published 17.9%. Large and OA publishers increased their article share through leading mega journals, but the remaining publishers showed the opposite tendency. In JCR 2020, mega journals had a 26.5% article share and an excellent distribution in terms of the Journal Impact Factor quartile. Despite the high growth (22.6%) and share (26.0%) of OA articles, the natural growth of non-OA articles (7.3%) and total articles (10.7%) caused a rise in journal subscription fees. Articles, citations, the impact factor, and the immediacy index all increased gradually, and the compound annual growth rate of the average immediacy index was almost double than that of the average impact factor in JCR 2020.
Conclusion
The influence of OA publishers has grown under the dominance of large publishers, and mega journals may substantially change the journal market. Journal stakeholders should pay attention to these changes.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • Publishing trends of journals and articles in Journal Citation Reports during the COVID-19 pandemic: a descriptive study
    Sang-Jun Kim, Kay Sook Park
    Science Editing.2023; 10(1): 78.     CrossRef
  • Citation beneficiaries of discipline-specific mega-journals: who and how much
    Jing Li, Qiushuang Long, Xiaoli Lu, Dengsheng Wu
    Humanities and Social Sciences Communications.2023;[Epub]     CrossRef

Science Editing : Science Editing