Science Editing

Most-read articles are from the articles published in 2022 during the last three month.

Review

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

65,535 View
317 Download

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

Essay

Our journey as intern junior editors at the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance: Ségolène M. R. Guérin, Cynthia Tarlao, Aytaç Karabay; Sci Ed. 2024;11(2):160-163. Published online August 20, 2024; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.345

1,716 View
62 Download

PDF

Original Articles

Explosive increase and decrease in articles, citations, impact factor, and immediacy index during the COVID-19 pandemic: a bibliometric study: Sang-Jun Kim; Sci Ed. 2024;11(2):107-113. Published online June 26, 2024; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.334

4,483 View
107 Download

Abstract PDF: Purpose
This study investigated how Journal Citation Reports (JCR) metrics changed during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020–2022), with the aim of sharing this information with stakeholders in the publishing community.
Methods
In total, 7,689 journals listed in the JCR-Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) from 2016 to 2022 were selected. Data were analyzed using pivot tables in Microsoft Excel. We calculated the compound annual growth rate to investigate changes in JCR-SCIE articles, citations, the journal impact factor, and the immediacy index during the COVID-19 period.
Results
A marked increase was noted in the number of articles and citations during the COVID-19 pandemic from 2020 to 2022. This surge was primarily driven by a significant rise in COVID-19–related articles. Consequently, four JCR metrics exhibited a sharp increase in 2020, followed by an unusually steep decline in 2022. Articles, citations, and the journal impact factor reached their highest recorded levels in 2021, while the immediacy index saw its most significant growth and intense citation activity in 2020 before experiencing notable decreases in 2021 and 2022. Our findings indicate that there was an unprecedented and dramatic shift in these four JCR metrics during the COVID-19 period, with current trends suggesting a reversion to historical compound annual growth rate levels.
Conclusion
The journal publishing and scientific communities should consider these explosive changes when applying JCR metrics to evaluate articles and endeavor to mitigate the adverse effects of the unusual concentration of articles and citations during the COVID-19 period. These results constitute valuable information to be shared among researchers and stakeholders within the journal publishing community.

How Spanish educational researchers used Twitter/X as a platform to promote the dissemination of scientific knowledge: a descriptive study: Elias Said-Hung, Sergio Arce-García, Daria Mottareale-Calvanese; Sci Ed. 2024;11(2):123-133. Published online June 26, 2024; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.336

1,690 View
31 Download

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material: Purpose
This study aimed to examine how educational researchers in Spain promoted the dissemination of scientific knowledge on Twitter/X as a platform and to contrast their approach with science influencers in the same country.
Methods
Accounts on the Twitter/X service belonging to 210 Spanish researchers were analyzed, and their 2016–2020 tweets were compared to those of 38 Twitter/X influencers. Text mining techniques, sentiment and emotion analysis, network analysis, and the Kardashian index (K-index) were used in the study.
Results
The results indicated a low academic presence of researchers (4.4%) on Twitter/X. The researchers shared 185,020 posts (38.7% original content and 61.3% retweets). A network analysis revealed low interconnectivity among researchers, with distinct clusters based on their interests or affiliations. The top influencers had strong connections with the news media. The researchers focused minimally on academic topics, while the influencers emphasized the dissemination of scientific findings. The impact of the researchers’ posts was minimal, with low K-index values, whereas the influencers had greater reach because of their follower base.
Conclusion
When using Twitter/X, the researchers had a minimal impact on the dissemination of scientific information because they published few original posts and relied instead on retweets unrelated to their academic or research activities. Consequently, the researchers did not use Twitter/X as a tool for scientific communication, which limited the potential for forming new connections beyond their existing social and academic networks. Promoting informal learning that encompasses diverse knowledge and learning levels is crucial to fostering greater engagement and collaboration.

Reviews

Influence of artificial intelligence and chatbots on research integrity and publication ethics: Payam Hosseinzadeh Kasani, Kee Hyun Cho, Jae-Won Jang, Cheol-Heui Yun; Sci Ed. 2024;11(1):12-25. Published online January 25, 2024; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.323

4,175 View
198 Download
2 Web of Science
2 Crossref

Abstract PDF

Artificial intelligence (AI)-powered chatbots are rapidly supplanting human-derived scholarly work in the fast-paced digital age. This necessitates a re-evaluation of our traditional research and publication ethics, which is the focus of this article. We explore the ethical issues that arise when AI chatbots are employed in research and publication. We critically examine the attribution of academic work, strategies for preventing plagiarism, the trustworthiness of AI-generated content, and the integration of empathy into these systems. Current approaches to ethical education, in our opinion, fall short of appropriately addressing these problems. We propose comprehensive initiatives to tackle these emerging ethical concerns. This review also examines the limitations of current chatbot detectors, underscoring the necessity for more sophisticated technology to safeguard academic integrity. The incorporation of AI and chatbots into the research environment is set to transform the way we approach scholarly inquiries. However, our study emphasizes the importance of employing these tools ethically within research and academia. As we move forward, it is of the utmost importance to concentrate on creating robust, flexible strategies and establishing comprehensive regulations that effectively align these potential technological developments with stringent ethical standards. We believe that this is an essential measure to ensure that the advancement of AI chatbots significantly augments the value of scholarly research activities, including publications, rather than introducing potential ethical quandaries.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Generative AI, Research Ethics, and Higher Education Research: Insights from a Scientometric Analysis
Saba Mansoor Qadhi, Ahmed Alduais, Youmen Chaaban, Majeda Khraisheh
Information.2024; 15(6): 325. CrossRef
Publication Ethics in the Era of Artificial Intelligence
Zafer Kocak
Journal of Korean Medical Science.2024;[Epub] CrossRef

Research ethics and issues regarding the use of ChatGPT-like artificial intelligence platforms by authors and reviewers: a narrative review: Sang-Jun Kim; Sci Ed. 2024;11(2):96-106. Published online August 20, 2024; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.343

1,001 View
83 Download

Abstract PDF: While generative artificial intelligence (AI) technology has become increasingly competitive since OpenAI introduced ChatGPT, its widespread use poses significant ethical challenges in research. Excessive reliance on tools like ChatGPT may intensify ethical concerns in scholarly articles. Therefore, this article aims to provide a comprehensive narrative review of the ethical issues associated with using AI in academic writing and to inform researchers of current trends. Our methodology involved a detailed examination of literature on ChatGPT and related research trends. We conducted searches in major databases to identify additional relevant articles and cited literature, from which we collected and analyzed papers. We identified major issues from the literature, categorized into problems faced by authors using nonacademic AI platforms in writing and challenges related to the detection and acceptance of AI-generated content by reviewers and editors. We explored eight specific ethical problems highlighted by authors and reviewers and conducted a thorough review of five key topics in research ethics. Given that nonacademic AI platforms like ChatGPT often do not disclose their training data sources, there is a substantial risk of unattributed content and plagiarism. Therefore, researchers must verify the accuracy and authenticity of AI-generated content before incorporating it into their article, ensuring adherence to principles of research integrity and ethics, including avoidance of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism.

Original Article

Changes in the absolute numbers and proportions of open access articles from 2000 to 2021 based on the Web of Science Core Collection: a bibliometric study: Jeong-Wook Seo; Sci Ed. 2023;10(1):45-56. Published online February 16, 2023; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.296

4,409 View
265 Download

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material: Purpose
The ultimate goal of current open access (OA) initiatives is for library services to use OA resources. This study aimed to assess the infrastructure for OA scholarly information services by tabulating the number and proportion of OA articles in a literature database.
Methods
We measured the absolute numbers and proportions of OA articles at different time points across various disciplines based on the Web of Science (WoS) database.
Results
The number (proportion) of available OA articles between 2000 and 2021 in the WoS database was 12 million (32.4%). The number (proportion) of indexed OA articles in 1 year was 0.15 million (14.6%) in 2000 and 1.5 million (48.0%) in 2021. The proportion of OA by subject categories in the cumulative data was the highest in the multidisciplinary category (2000–2021, 79%; 2021, 89%), high in natural sciences (2000–2021, 21%–46%; 2021, 41%–62%) and health and medicine (2000–2021, 37%–40%; 2021, 52%–60%), and low in social sciences and others (2000–2021, 23%–32%; 2021, 36%–44%), engineering (2000–2021, 17%–33%; 2021, 31%–39%) and humanities and arts (2000–2021, 11%–22%; 2021, 28%–38%).
Conclusion
Our study confirmed that increasingly many OA research papers have been published in the last 20 years, and the recent data show considerable promise for better services in the future. The proportions of OA articles differed among scholarly disciplines, and designing library services necessitates several considerations with regard to the customers’ demands, available OA resources, and strategic approaches to encourage the use of scholarly OA articles.

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

7,358 View
368 Download
11 Web of Science
17 Crossref

Abstract 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;[Epub] 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; 40(6): 1047. CrossRef
Publishing Embargoes and Versions of Preprints: Impact on the Dissemination of Information
Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, Chun-Kai (Karl) Huang, Maryna Nazarovets
Open Information Science.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Accelerated acceptance time for preprint submissions: a comparative analysis based on PubMed
Dan Tian, Xin Liu, Jiang Li
Scientometrics.2024; 129(7): 3787. CrossRef
Are Preprints a Threat to the Credibility and Quality of Artificial Intelligence Literature in the ChatGPT Era? A Scoping Review and Qualitative Study
Michael Agyemang Adarkwah, A. Y. M. Atiquil Islam, Käthe Schneider, Rose Luckin, Michael Thomas, Jonathan Michael Spector
International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction.2024; : 1. CrossRef
A perspective on the Center for Open Science (COS) preprint servers
J. A. Teixeira da Silva
Science Editor and Publisher.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Recent Issues in Medical Journal Publishing and Editing Policies: Adoption of Artificial Intelligence, Preprints, Open Peer Review, Model Text Recycling Policies, Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing 4th Version, and Country Names in Titles
Sun Huh
Neurointervention.2023; 18(1): 2. CrossRef
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

Original Article

Different scope of two applied biological chemistry journals as revealed by network analysis: a bibliometric study: Samyoung YU, Jihye Ahn, Moonsung Choi; Sci Ed. 2024;11(2):114-123. Published online June 26, 2024; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.335

987 View
22 Download

Abstract PDF: Purpose
The landscape of academic publishing is experiencing significant transformations, characterized by an increasing volume of research output and the growth of interdisciplinary studies. These developments pose complex challenges for editorial boards, necessitating advanced strategies for submission management and the maintenance of publication standards.
Methods
Utilizing network analysis, this study examined 1,865 articles from Applied Biological Chemistry and 1,081 articles from Journal of Applied Biological Chemistry, revealing distinct thematic and methodological orientations within these journals.
Results
Applied Biological Chemistry demonstrated a pronounced focus on extraction processes, while Journal of Applied Biological Chemistry focused more on fermentation techniques and enzymatic studies. This differentiation highlights the journals’ unique contributions to the field of applied life sciences and underscores the diversity within academic publishing.
Conclusion
The findings of this study not only shed light on the subtle distinctions between Applied Biological Chemistry and Journal of Applied Biological Chemistry but also emphasize the critical role of articulating the journal scope in detail in helping authors find the most suitable publication venues for their interdisciplinary research. By showcasing the utility of bibliometrics and network analysis, this research provides valuable insights for editorial boards to refine their management processes and for authors to navigate the complex landscape of academic publishing effectively, thereby enhancing the dissemination and impact of scholarly work.

Reviews

Trends in research on ChatGPT and adoption-related issues discussed in articles: a narrative review: Sang-Jun Kim; Sci Ed. 2024;11(1):3-11. Published online December 18, 2023; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.321

8,098 View
282 Download
3 Web of Science
3 Crossref

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material

This review aims to provide guidance for those contemplating the use of ChatGPT, by sharing research trends and evaluation results discussed in various articles. For an objective and quantitative analysis, 1,105 articles published over a 7-month period, from December 2022 to June 2023, following the release of ChatGPT were collected. These articles were sourced from PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Additionally, 140 research articles were selected, including archived preprints and Korean articles, to evaluate the performance of ChatGPT. The analysis of research trends revealed that related communities are rapidly and actively responding: the educational community is redefining its directions, the copyright and patent community is monitoring lawsuits related to artificial intelligence creations, the government is establishing laws to regulate and prevent potential harm, the journal publishing community is setting standards for whether artificial intelligence can be considered an author, and the medical community is publishing numerous articles exploring the potential of ChatGPT to support medical experts. A comparative analysis of research articles on ChatGPT’s performance suggests that it could serve as a valuable assistant in human intellectual activities and academic processes. However, its practical application requires careful consideration to overcome certain limitations. Both the general public and researchers should assess the adoption of ChatGPT based on accurate information, such as that provided in this review.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

The emergence of generative artificial intelligence platforms in 2023, journal metrics, appreciation to reviewers and volunteers, and obituary
Sun Huh
Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions.2024; 21: 9. CrossRef
Explosive increase and decrease in articles, citations, impact factor, and immediacy index during the COVID-19 pandemic: a bibliometric study
Sang-Jun Kim
Science Editing.2024; 11(2): 107. CrossRef
Research ethics and issues regarding the use of ChatGPT-like artificial intelligence platforms by authors and reviewers: a narrative review
Sang-Jun Kim
Science Editing.2024; 11(2): 96. CrossRef

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

5,932 View
456 Download
4 Web of Science
3 Crossref

Abstract 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

Decoding Research with a Glance: The Power of Graphical Abstracts and Infographics
Madhan Jeyaraman, Naveen Jeyaraman, Swaminathan Ramasubramanian, Abhishek Vaish, Raju Vaishya
Apollo Medicine.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
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

Original Article

Comparing the accuracy and effectiveness of Wordvice AI Proofreader to two automated editing tools and human editors: Kevin Heintz, Younghoon Roh, Jonghwan Lee; Sci Ed. 2022;9(1):37-45. Published online February 20, 2022; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.261

6,749 View
385 Download
1 Web of Science
2 Crossref

Abstract PDF

Purpose
Wordvice AI Proofreader is a recently developed web-based artificial intelligence-driven text processor that provides real-time automated proofreading and editing of user-input text. It aims to compare its accuracy and effectiveness to expert proofreading by human editors and two other popular proofreading applications—automated writing analysis tools of Google Docs, and Microsoft Word. Because this tool was primarily designed for use by academic authors to proofread their manuscript drafts, the comparison of this tool’s efficacy to other tools was intended to establish the usefulness of this particular field for these authors.
Methods
We performed a comparative analysis of proofreading completed by the Wordvice AI Proofreader, by experienced human academic editors, and by two other popular proofreading applications. The number of errors accurately reported and the overall usefulness of the vocabulary suggestions was measured using a General Language Evaluation Understanding metric and open dataset comparisons.
Results
In the majority of texts analyzed, the Wordvice AI Proofreader achieved performance levels at or near that of the human editors, identifying similar errors and offering comparable suggestions in the majority of sample passages. The Wordvice AI Proofreader also had higher performance and greater consistency than that of the other two proofreading applications evaluated.
Conclusion
We found that the overall functionality of the Wordvice artificial intelligence proofreading tool is comparable to that of a human proofreader and equal or superior to that of two other programs with built-in automated writing evaluation proofreaders used by tens of millions of users: Google Docs and Microsoft Word.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Navigating the impact: a study of editors’ and proofreaders’ perceptions of AI tools in editing and proofreading
Islam Al Sawi, Ahmed Alaa
Discover Artificial Intelligence.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Exploring students’ perspectives on Generative AI-assisted academic writing
Jinhee Kim, Seongryeong Yu, Rita Detrick, Na Li
Education and Information Technologies.2024;[Epub] 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

7,038 View
462 Download
4 Web of Science
11 Crossref

Abstract 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

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.2024; 40(17): 4853. CrossRef
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; 43(21): 19481. 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;[Epub] CrossRef
Interaction with Artificial Intelligence as a Potential of Foreign Language Teaching Program in Graduate School
T. V. Potemkina, Yu. A. Avdeeva, U. Yu. Ivanova
Vysshee Obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia.2024; 33(5): 67. CrossRef
Did ChatGPT ask or agree to be a (co)author? ChatGPT authorship reflects the wider problem of inappropriate authorship practices
Bor Luen Tang
Science Editing.2024; 11(2): 93. 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
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

Trends in scientific production in telecommunications (1981–2023): a bibliometric study: María del Pilar Castro Arellano, Guillermo Alexander Quezada Castro, María del Pilar Quezada Castro; Sci Ed. 2024;11(2):134-141. Published online August 20, 2024; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.342

540 View
35 Download

Abstract PDF: Purpose
Telecommunications have evolved in response to technological advancements and regulatory changes established in law. There remains a research gap concerning universal access to communication rights, which can be addressed through a bibliometric analysis of the scientific literature. This study aimed to identify trends in telecommunications research. Accordingly, it analyzed annual scientific output, determined the most representative journals, examined prevalent keywords, highlighted the most productive authors, and identified key articles in the field.
Methods
Scientific production was analyzed using the Scopus database. Documents published between 1981 and 2023 in English were included, while those not relevant to the study topic were excluded. A total of 237 documents were analyzed using the Biblioshiny interface and Microsoft Excel.
Results
Annual scientific output peaked in 2021, with an annual growth of 2.91%. The most representative journal was Telecommunications Policy. The consolidated keywords were “communication rights,” “public service media,” “media policy,” “regulation,” and “telecommunications.” The most productive authors were Amy Sanders and Pradip Thomas. The most cited article addressed the institutional foundations of telecommunications regulation.
Conclusion
There was evidence of growing scientific production in telecommunications, published in high-impact journals with an interdisciplinary approach. The main topics related to telecommunications were communication rights, regulation, and internet governance. Despite the presence of prolific authors, a need for greater collaboration in the formation of international research networks was identified.

Correspondence

Did ChatGPT ask or agree to be a (co)author? ChatGPT authorship reflects the wider problem of inappropriate authorship practices: Bor Luen Tang; Sci Ed. 2024;11(2):93-95. Published online July 4, 2024; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.337

722 View
46 Download

PDF Supplementary Material

First
Prev
Page of 6
Next
Last

Most read articles