Science Editing

Original Articles

Factors influencing authors’ intention to continue publishing in data journals: a cross-sectional survey: Seungeun Lee, Jihyun Kim; Sci Ed. 2025;12(2):183-189. Published online August 7, 2025; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.383

1,399 View
41 Download

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material: Purpose
This study investigated the factors influencing data paper authors’ continuance intention to publish in data journals, drawing on the post-acceptance model and the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. Based on these theoretical frameworks, four factors—perceived usefulness, satisfaction, effort expectancy, and social influence—were hypothesized to be associated with authors’ continuance intention.
Methods
A cross-sectional survey was conducted using an online questionnaire distributed to authors who had published in eight data journals where data papers constituted more than 20% of all publications. In total, 453 responses were collected, resulting in a 6.2% response rate. Ordered logistic regression analysis was employed to identify significant influencing factors.
Results
The ordered logistic regression analysis indicated that satisfaction and perceived usefulness were positively associated with authors’ continuance intention, while effort expectancy was negatively associated. Among these, satisfaction with a data journal exerted the strongest influence on continuance intention.
Conclusion
These findings underscore the importance for data journal publishers to actively manage authors’ satisfaction throughout the submission and peer review processes. The identification of perceived usefulness as another significant factor suggests that funders and academic institutions should incentivize authors to publish in data journals. Authors who perceived that publishing in a data journal required excessive time were less likely to intend to publish there again. Training in research data management best practices, provided by academic libraries, may help reduce the time burden associated with data preparation and sharing.

Trends, causes, and collaboration patterns of retracted Taiwanese medical research: a bibliometric study: Joshua Wang; Sci Ed. 2025;12(1):35-42. Published online February 11, 2025; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.360

4,285 View
201 Download

Abstract PDF: Purpose
Retraction of published literature is an increasingly important mechanism for protecting the scholarly record in today’s accelerated publishing environment. Analyzing retracted articles offers unique insights into how research communities maintain academic integrity. Taiwan is a major contributor to global medical research and has sustained public and media interest in academic integrity. Yet, no comprehensive analysis of retractions involving Taiwan-affiliated authors has been conducted. This paper therefore aimed to systematically examine retractions in Taiwanese medical research.
Methods
Data extracted from both PubMed and the Retraction Watch Database were analyzed to determine the number of retracted articles and their reasons for retraction.
Results
In total, 181 retractions of medical research articles with at least one Taiwan-affiliated author were included in the analysis, with the number of retractions steadily increasing since the first retracted article was published in 1992. Taiwanese medical research has the 9th highest retraction rate among the top 21 countries in medical research publications (6.08 retractions per 10,000 publications). However, this rate is lower than those of other highly productive Asian countries, including China, Korea, Japan, and India. Fifty-eight (32.04%) of the retractions involved international collaboration, most commonly with authors affiliated with the United States and China. Over the past 33 years, the reasons for retraction have gradually shifted from plagiarism or data manipulation to compromised peer review systems, ethical issues, and authorship disputes.
Conclusion
The results reveal that retractions in Taiwanese medical research are evolving and distinct from those in neighboring regions. This finding highlights the need to examine Taiwanese medical researchers’ perspectives on academic integrity and current publishing trends.

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

13,650 View
1,045 Download
2 Web of Science
4 Crossref

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material

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

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

“An Assistant in Your Pocket”: How Generative AI Shapes the Publishing Practices of Russian Postgraduate Students
E. A. Koval, S. G. Ushkin, O. N. Ageeva, N. V. Zhadunova
Vysshee Obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia.2026; 34(12): 107. CrossRef
Uso ético y eficiente de la inteligencia artificial en trabajos académicos: Veritas e interacción crítica escalonada
Lluís Codina
BiD: textos universitaris de biblioteconomia i documentació.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
On Artificial Intelligence and the Transformation of Scientific Publishing
Ingri G. Camacho-Triana, Julian Arcila-Forero, José D. Gutierrez-Mendoza, Ian F. Guarnizo-Martinez, Lenin A. Bulla-Cruz, Sonia C. Mangones M.
Ingeniería e Investigación.2026; 45(3): e125615. CrossRef
Biomedical research publication in the age of artificial intelligence: Current prospects for balancing integrity and innovation
Vivek Kumar Bains, Ujjal K Bhawal
Journal of Healthcare Research and Education.2025; 1: 3. CrossRef

Review

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

34,718 View
1,456 Download
22 Web of Science
23 Crossref

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.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Understanding haze data contestations in Singapore: between accuracy and affect
Nurul Amillin Hussain
Environmental Sociology.2026; 12(1): 126. CrossRef
Generative AI in academia: Efficiency versus scholarship
Daniela Schnitzler
The Journal of Physiology.2026; 604(1): 31. CrossRef
A Cross‐Disciplinary Analysis of AI Policies in Academic Peer Review
Zhongshi Wang, Mengyue Gong
Learned Publishing.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
AI detecting AI in academic writing: Why most AI detector findings are false
Panagiotis Tsigaris, Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva
Next Research.2026; : 101396. CrossRef
Human-AI collaboration in vocational writing: Building a framework for adaptive English learning
Şükran Türkmen Çiçek, Dilek Tüfekci Can
Journal of Educational Technology and Online Learning.2026; 9(1): 45. CrossRef
Aligning Generative AI with Higher Education Workflows: Indonesian Lecturers’ Anxiety–Satisfaction Profiles and Adoption Patterns
Muhammad Zaim, Safnil Arsyad, Budi Waluyo, An Fauzia Rozani Syafei, Ratmanida, Rifqi Aulia Zaim
Education Sciences.2026; 16(2): 271. CrossRef
The future of scholarly communication: rethinking peer review and editorial roles in the digital age
Jacob Oppong Nkansah, Edward Kwabena Ameyaw, Padmore Adusei Amoah
Research Evaluation.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Generative artificial intelligence tools in journal article preparation: A preliminary catalog of ethical considerations, opportunities, and pitfalls
Robin R. White
JDS Communications.2025; 6(3): 452. CrossRef
Ethics For Responsible Data Research: Integrating Cybersecurity Perspectives In Digital Era
Sheetal Temara
SSRN Electronic Journal.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Ethical guidelines for the use of generative artificial intelligence and artificial intelligence-assisted tools in scholarly publishing: a thematic analysis
Adéle da Veiga
Science Editing.2025; 12(1): 28. CrossRef
Artificial intelligence-assisted academic writing: recommendations for ethical use
Adam Cheng, Aaron Calhoun, Gabriel Reedy
Advances in Simulation.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Exploring AI Hallucinations of ChatGPT
Adam Cheng, Vikhashni Nagesh, Susan Eller, Vincent Grant, Yiqun Lin
Simulation in Healthcare: The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare.2025; 20(6): 413. CrossRef
Research trends and comparisons of major generative artificial intelligence platforms for systematic literature reviews
Sang-Jun Kim
Science Editing.2025; 12(2): 200. CrossRef
Are Teachers Assessing Work Written by Students or by AI? A Rapid Literature Review of Research on Detecting Content Generated by Generative AI
Jining Han, Yuying Yang, Geping Liu
European Journal of Education.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Applications of artificial intelligence in healthcare simulation: a model of thinking
Adam Cheng, Carolyn McGregor
Advances in Simulation.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
¿Cómo está transformando la inteligencia artificial la comunicación científica? Desafíos, oportunidades y el papel de los actores involucrados: una revisión de alcance
Jairo Buitrago-Ciro, Estela Morales Campos, César Leonardo Villamizar Romero
Investigación Bibliotecológica: archivonomía, bibliotecología e información.2025; 39(104): 111. CrossRef
ChatGPT: how to use it and the pitfalls/cautions in academia
Jeong-Moo Lee
Annals of Pediatric Endocrinology & Metabolism.2025; 30(5): 229. CrossRef
Initial Validation of the IMPACT Model: Technological Appropriation of ChatGPT by University Faculty
Luz-M. Pereira-González, Andrea Basantes-Andrade, Miguel Naranjo-Toro, Mailevy Guia-Pereira
Education Sciences.2025; 15(11): 1520. CrossRef
The Epistemic Downside of Using LLM-Based Generative AI in Academic Writing
Bor Luen Tang
Publications.2025; 13(4): 63. CrossRef
Ethical Considerations for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Linguistics Journal Publishing: Combining Hybrid Thematic Analysis and Critical Discourse Analysis
Xuan Wang, Xinyi Zhang
Publications.2025; 13(4): 61. CrossRef
Ethical Implications of Using Artificial Intelligence in Intellectual Property Creation: Authorship, Ownership and Responsibility Issues
K. Afuwape
Journal of Digital Technologies and Law.2025; 3(4): 677. CrossRef
How is ChatGPT acknowledged in academic publications?
Kayvan Kousha
Scientometrics.2024; 129(12): 7959. CrossRef
Appliances of Generative AI-Powered Language Tools in Academic Writing: A Scoping Review
Lilia Raitskaya, Elena Tikhonova
Journal of Language and Education.2024; 10(4): 5. CrossRef

Original Articles

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; Sci Ed. 2024;11(1):38-43. Published online February 20, 2024; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.329

5,190 View
137 Download
1 Web of Science
1 Crossref

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material

Purpose
This study conducted a comprehensive analysis of North Korean domestic journals, using scientific quantification methodologies to identify prominent researchers and research areas within the field of chemistry.
Methods
Data were collected from the journal Chemistry and Chemical Engineering published in North Korea. Through an analysis of co-authorship relations and literature reviews of papers authored by researchers who were highly influential in research networks, core research areas were identified.
Results
The researcher with the highest number of publications in the given period was Yong-Chol Lee, with 31 publications, followed closely by Gyun Kim, who also demonstrated significant research activity. When focusing on the last 5 years, Myeong-Cheol Hong emerged as a prominent figure. Yong-Chol Lee has expertise across diverse fields of chemistry, including fine chemicals, biochemistry, and mineral materials. Gyun Kim, in contrast, is recognized for his in-depth knowledge of organics, enzymes, processes, catalysis, fine chemicals, and industrial chemistry. Myung-Cheol Hong’s research primarily centers around organic chemical synthesis within the fine chemical domain. All three researchers are making substantial contributions to the chemical industry.
Conclusion
The findings of this study provide valuable insights into research trends in the field of chemistry in North Korea and contribute to a broader understanding of the discipline’s internal knowledge structure within the global academic community. This research is anticipated to be especially useful for scholars who are analyzing bibliographic information pertaining to North Korea.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Nuclear science in North Korea: a case study of the Journal of Kim Il-Sung university, 1982–2024
Dae Un Hong
Scientometrics.2026;[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

11,787 View
587 Download
12 Web of Science
16 Crossref

Abstract PDF Supplementary 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

Do AI-related papers in top management science journals contribute greater academic influence and online attention?
Lu Guo, Yezhu Wang, Ayuan Zhang
The Electronic Library.2026; 44(1): 73. CrossRef
Between Shortcut and Ethics: Navigating the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Academic Writing Among Indonesian Doctoral Students
Hardiyanti Pratiwi, Suherman, Hasruddin, Muhammad Ridha
European Journal of Education.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Examining predictors of generative-AI acceptance and usage in academic research: a sequential mixed-methods approach
Sushma Verma, Neerja Kashive, Ashish Gupta
Benchmarking: An International Journal.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Harnessing the Potential of AI Tools for Student Thesis Research and Writing: An Appreciative Inquiry
Dan Namanya, Mennen Pearl C. Talibong
Pan-African Journal of Education and Social Sciences.2025; 6(1): 30. CrossRef
Perceptions of artificial intelligence in academic teaching and research: a qualitative study from AI experts and professors’ perspectives
Ana Daniela Peres Rebelo Verboom, Leonor Pais, Fred R. H. Zijlstra, Frederick L. Oswald, Nuno Rebelo dos Santos
International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Generative AI and academic scientists in US universities: Perception, experience, and adoption intentions
Wenceslao Arroyo-Machado, Jinghuan Ma, Tipeng Chen, Timothy P. Johnson, Shaika Islam, Lesley Michalegko, Eric Welch, Kingsley Okoye
PLOS One.2025; 20(8): e0330416. CrossRef
¿Cómo está transformando la inteligencia artificial la comunicación científica? Desafíos, oportunidades y el papel de los actores involucrados: una revisión de alcance
Jairo Buitrago-Ciro, Estela Morales Campos, César Leonardo Villamizar Romero
Investigación Bibliotecológica: archivonomía, bibliotecología e información.2025; 39(104): 111. CrossRef
Beyond English Hegemony
ZIYANG XU
Proceedings of the ALISE Annual Conference.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Artificial intelligence in higher education and research: A sample of tourism academic opinions
Selda Güven, Selin Yılmaz Balkaner, Bayram Şahin
Turyzm/Tourism.2025; 35(2): 33. CrossRef
A Systematic Review of Academic Integrity and Misconduct with Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education
Bahar Memarian, Tenzin Doleck
SN Computer Science.2025;[Epub] 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.2024; 61(5): 1029. 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
Publish or perish in the era of artificial intelligence: which way for the Kenyan research community?
Stephen Oloo Ajwang, Anselimo Peters Ikoha
Library Hi Tech News.2024; 41(9): 7. CrossRef
Is Artificial Intelligence against/for Better Ethical Scientific Research?
Huriye Yaşar, Vasif Karagücük
Experimental and Applied Medical Science.2024; 5(2): 49. CrossRef
Evaluating the significance of artificial intelligence (AI) in academic platforms by using PIPRECIA-S method
Tijana Đukić, Srđan Novaković, Kristina Jauković-Jocić
Ekonomika.2024; 70(3): 11. CrossRef
Scholarly Discourse on GenAI’s Impact on Academic Publishing
Yogesh K. Dwivedi, Tegwen Malik, Laurie Hughes, Mousa Ahmed Albashrawi
Journal of Computer Information Systems.2024; : 1. 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

12,650 View
526 Download
11 Web of Science
18 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

Locating the Ethics of ChatGPT—Ethical Issues as Affordances in AI Ecosystems
Bernd Carsten Stahl
Information.2025; 16(2): 104. CrossRef
Interpreting text corpora from androids-related stories using large language models: “Machines like me” by Ian McEwan in generative AI
Simona-Vasilica Oprea, Adela Bâra
Humanities and Social Sciences Communications.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
And Plato met ChatGPT: an ethical reflection on the use of chatbots in scientific research writing, with a particular focus on the social sciences
Reyes Calderon, Francisco Herrera
Humanities and Social Sciences Communications.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Responses to the Initial Hype: ChatGPT Supporting Teaching, Learning, and Scholarship?
Berrin Cefa, Felicitas Macgilchrist, Hebatullah ElGamal, John Y. H. Bai, Olaf Zawacki-Richter, Frank S. Loglo
Open Praxis.2025; 17(2): 227. CrossRef
How appropriately can generative artificial intelligence platforms, including GPT-4, Gemini, Bing, and Wrtn, answer questions about colon cancer in the Korean language?
Sun Huh
Annals of Coloproctology.2025; 41(3): 190. CrossRef
A Study of Academics’ Perceptions of Ethical Implications of Generative Artificial Intelligence on Scientific Research and Publishing
Perihan Elif Ekmekci, Banu Buruk, Başak Akar, Nazife Yasemin Ardıçoğlu Akışın
Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics.2025; 20(4): 190. CrossRef
AI-Assisted Works: Copyrightability in the United States, China, and the EU, and Implications for Academic Integrity
Mariusz Krzysztofek
Review of European and Comparative Law.2025;[Epub] 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.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 Articles

Charting variety, scope, and impact of open access diamond journals in various disciplines and regions: a survey-based observational study: Korean Council of Science Editors; Sci Ed. 2022;9(2):120-135. Published online August 19, 2022; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.277

10,046 View
345 Download
6 Web of Science
6 Crossref

Abstract PDF Supplementary 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

Citation Metrics of Open Access and Subscription Journals in Education: An Analysis in Scopus’s Education Category
Camila Lopes Ferreira, Luiz Alberto Pilatti, José Roberto Herrera Cantorani, Claudia Tania Picinin
Education for Information.2026; 42(1): 3. CrossRef
Awareness and perception of Diamond Open Access among university professors in Iran
A. Subaveerapandiyan, Leili Seifi, Somipam R Shimray, Naved Ahmad
Journal of Librarianship and Information Science.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Journal metrics, document network, and conceptual and social structures of the Korean Journal of Anesthesiology from 2017 to July 2022: a bibliometric study
Sun Huh
Korean Journal of Anesthesiology.2023; 76(1): 3. CrossRef
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

Development of a decision-support tool to quantify authorship contributions in clinical trial publications: Sam T. Mathew, Habeeb Ibrahim Abdul Razack, Prasanth Viswanathan; Sci Ed. 2022;9(1):22-29. Published online February 20, 2022; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.259

8,760 View
372 Download

Abstract PDF: Purpose
This study aimed to develop a decision-support tool to quantitatively determine authorship in clinical trial publications.
Methods
The tool was developed in three phases: consolidation of authorship recommendations from the Good Publication Practice (GPP) and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) guidelines, identifying and scoring attributes using a 5-point Likert scale or a dichotomous scale, and soliciting feedback from editors and researchers.
Results
The authorship criteria stipulated by the ICMJE and GPP recommendations were categorized into 2 Modules. Criterion 1 and the related GPP recommendations formed Module 1 (sub-criteria: contribution to design, data generation, and interpretation), while Module 2 was based on criteria 2 to 4 and the related GPP recommendations (sub-criteria: contribution to manuscript preparation and approval). The two modules with relevant sub-criteria were then differentiated into attributes (n = 17 in Module 1, n = 12 in Module 2). An individual contributor can be scored for each sub-criterion by summing the related attribute values; the sum of sub-criteria scores constituted the module score (Module 1 score: 70 [contribution to conception or design of the study, 20; data acquisition, 7; data analysis, 27; interpretation of data, 16]; Module 2 score: 50 [content development, 27; content review, 18; accountability, 5]). The concept was integrated into Microsoft Excel with adequate formulae and macros. A threshold of 50% for each sub-criterion and each module, with an overall score of 65%, is predefined as qualifying for authorship.
Conclusion
This authorship decision-support tool would be helpful for clinical trial sponsors to assess and provide authorship to deserving contributors.

Case Studys

Korean court cases regarding research and publication ethics from 2009 to 2020: Ju Yoen Lee; Sci Ed. 2021;8(1):98-103. Published online February 20, 2021; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.236

10,468 View
190 Download
1 Web of Science
2 Crossref

Abstract PDF

Research and publication misconduct may occur in various forms, including author misrepresentation, plagiarism, and data fabrication. Research and publication ethics are essentially not legal duties, but ethical obligations. In reality, however, legal disputes arise over whether research and publication ethics have been violated. Thus, in many cases, misconduct in research and publication is determined in the courts. This article presents noteworthy legal cases in Korea regarding research and publication ethics to help editors and authors prevent ethical misconduct. Legal cases from 2009 to 2020 were collected from the database of the Supreme Court of Korea in December 2020. These court cases represent three case types: 1) civil cases, such as affirmation of nullity of dismissal and damages; 2) criminal cases, such as fraud, interference with business, and violations of copyright law; and 3) administrative cases related to disciplinary measures against professors affiliated with a university. These cases show that although research and publication ethics are ethical norms that are autonomously established by the relevant academic societies, they become a criterion for case resolution in legal disputes where research and publication misconduct is at issue.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Scientific Misconduct in the Era of Artificial Intelligence: Insights From the Global South
Md Sozon, Ceceilia Parnther
Higher Education Quarterly.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Congratulations on Child Health Nursing Research becoming a PubMed Central journal and reflections on its significance
Sun Huh
Child Health Nursing Research.2022; 28(1): 1. CrossRef

Analysis of consultations by the Committee for Publication Ethics of the Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors: You Sun Kim, Dong Soo Han; Sci Ed. 2020;7(2):184-188. Published online August 20, 2020; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.215

8,265 View
124 Download
5 Web of Science
4 Crossref

Abstract PDF

This study aimed to analyze the inquiries on research and publication ethics submitted to the Committee for Publication Ethics of the Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors. A total of 80 inquiries were initiated over the course of 3 years, from April 2017 to March 2020. Based on a categorization of these inquiries, four common topics are discussed in detail. We present specific cases derived from actual situations, and the steps taken in processing these inquiries. The number of inquiries by topic was as follows: duplicate publications (12), secondary publications (11), authorship disputes (11), informed consent (6), proceedings (5), copyright (5), institutional review board approval (5), plagiarism (4), corrections (4), and others (17). Cases of duplicate publication and authorship disputes can be treated according to the flow chart of the Committee on Publication Ethics of the United Kingdom. Secondary publications may be permitted if the readers or audiences are different and both journals’ editors grant permission. Editors should be cautious about publishing cases without informed consent, even in the absence of identifiable photos, because patients or their families may be able to identify the cases. An adequate awareness of ethical considerations relevant to publication can help reduce the number of instances of research and publication ethics misconduct.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Recent Trends in Machine and Deep Learning for Verbal and Non-verbal Emotion Detection
Muskan Chawla, Surya Narayan Panda, Vikas Khullar, Isha Kansal, Rajeev Kumar
Recent Advances in Electrical & Electronic Engineering (Formerly Recent Patents on Electrical & Electronic Engineering).2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Ethics Committees: Structure, Roles, and Issues
Pankti Mehta, Olena Zimba, Armen Yuri Gasparyan, Birzhan Seiil, Marlen Yessirkepov
Journal of Korean Medical Science.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Analysis of duplicated publications in Russian journals
Yury V. Chekhovich, Andrey V. Khazov
Journal of Informetrics.2022; 16(1): 101246. CrossRef
Consultation questions on publication ethics from 2016 to 2020 addressed by the Committee on Publication Ethics of the Korean Council of Science Editors
Woo Jin Son, Cheol-Heui Yun
Science Editing.2021; 8(1): 112. CrossRef

Original Articles

Bibliometric analysis of flipped classroom publications from the Web of Science Core Collection published from 2000 to 2019: Hsin-Luen Tsai, Jia-Fen Wu; Sci Ed. 2020;7(2):163-168. Published online August 20, 2020; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.212; Correction in: Sci Ed 2021;8(1):129

10,124 View
253 Download
6 Web of Science
7 Crossref

Abstract PDF

Purpose
This study analyzed the bibliometric characteristics of flipped classroom publications in the Social Science Citation Index and Science Citation Index Expanded from 2000 to 2019. Methods: The terms related to “flipped classroom” and “inverted learning” were the keywords for searching journal articles on January 3, 2020. Results: There are 645 articles (including 33 early-access articles), representing 1,938 authors in the 210 journals scanned. The United States, China, and Taiwan were three leading countries/regions in this field. In the top 10 countries, to 10 institutions, the top eight most-cited journals were identified by either the number of publications or the number of citations. Hot-spot themes from the 24 highly-cited articles and author keyword co-occurrence analysis focus on empirical research in the flipped classroom, the overall feasibility of the flipped classroom course design and practical model, and students’ performances, and student-regulated learning (active learning and readiness) outcomes. Conclusion: TThe results indicate that the United States dominated flipped classroom research, originating most of the highly-cited articles, having more prolific authors, and presenting the most-cited institutions. Furthermore, little research has been undertaken into arriving at an understanding of evidentiary effectiveness or consistency in a flipped classroom. Based on the trends identified, we need a call for more specific types of research into the effectiveness of flipped classroom studies and systematic reviews.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Mapping the Scientific Landscape of the Flipped Classroom Model in K-12 Education During 2014-2024
Thi My Hong Tieu, Thi Thanh Tung Nguyen, Thi Thu Ha Luu, Duc Anh To, Thi Ngoc Minh Dao
European Journal of Educational Research.2025; 14(4): 1309. CrossRef
Two decades of STEM education studies in higher education: A bibliometric analysis
Irwanto Irwanto, Esrida Hutahaean
Journal of Turkish Science Education.2025; 22(3): 451. CrossRef
Teaching English as a Foreign Language in Higher Education using flipped learning/flipped classrooms: a literature review
Rosemary Fisher, Quyen Tran, Elena Verezub
Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching.2024; 18(4): 332. CrossRef
RETHİNKİNG CLASSROOMS: A COMPREHENSİVE ANALYSİS OF POSTGRADUATE THESES ON THE FLİPPED CLASSROOM MODEL İN TURKEY
Beytullah Karagöz, Hakan Karatop, Ali Erdönmez
Journal of Advanced Education Studies.2024; 6(1): 134. CrossRef
Ters Yüz Öğrenme Konusunda Yapılan Araştırmaların Bibliyometrik Analizi
Ali Ateş, Halük Ünsal
Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi.2024; 22(2): 1084. CrossRef
A conceptual review of the effectiveness of flipped learning in vocational learners’ cognitive skills and emotional states
Xiuqin Zhou
Frontiers in Psychology.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Review of flipped learning in engineering education: Scientific mapping and research horizon
Md Abdullah Al Mamun, Md Abul Kalam Azad, Md Abdullah Al Mamun, Michael Boyle
Education and Information Technologies.2022; 27(1): 1261. CrossRef

Authors’ perspectives on academic publishing: initial observations from a large-scale global survey: Basil D’Souza, Sneha Kulkarni, Clarinda Cerejo; Sci Ed. 2018;5(1):39-43. Published online February 19, 2018; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.116

17,385 View
285 Download
14 Web of Science
9 Crossref

Abstract PDF

Authors are at the heart of academic publishing, but their voices are underrepresented in discussions about improving the academic publishing system. To understand the viewpoints of authors on various aspects of academic publishing and the challenges they face, we developed a large-scale survey entitled “Author perspectives on the academic publishing process” and made it available in December 2016. The survey has received 8,795 responses; this paper is based on the interim results drawn from 5,293 survey responses, and presents some interesting and thought-provoking trends that were observed in the authors’ responses, such as their interpretation of plagiarism and decisive factors in journal selection, as well as their thoughts on what needs to change in the publishing system for it to be more author-friendly. Some of the most important findings of the survey were: (1) the majority of the authors found manuscript preparation to be the most challenging task in the publication process, (2) the impact factor of a journal was reported to be the most important consideration for journal selection, (3) most authors found journal guidelines to be incomplete, (4) major gaps existed in author-journal communication, and (5) although awareness of ethics was high, awareness of good publication practice standards was low. Moreover, more than half of the participants indicated that among areas for improvement in the publishing system, they would like to see changes in the time it takes to publish a paper, the peer review process, and the fairness and objectivity of the publication process. These findings indicate the necessity of making the journal publication process more author-centered and smoothing the way for authors to get published.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Modeling submission decision behavior: the effect of relevance and value
Xiaoting Xu, Juan Xie, Dongqing Lyu, Zhen Zhang, Jiang Li, Ying Cheng
Scientometrics.2026; 131(1): 31. CrossRef
Do prolific arts and humanities authors have publishing preferences?
Yu-Wei Chang, Hsuan-Tung Yeh
Scientometrics.2025; 130(2): 1281. CrossRef
Factors affecting authors' manuscript submission behaviour: A systematic review
Xiaoting Xu, Juan Xie, Jianjun Sun, Ying Cheng
Learned Publishing.2023; 36(2): 285. CrossRef
Authors' choice between parent and mirror journals of Elsevier
Sumiko Asai
Learned Publishing.2023; 36(2): 299. CrossRef
Video or perish? An analysis of video abstract author guidelines
Jianxin Liu
Journal of Librarianship and Information Science.2022; 54(2): 230. CrossRef
Why consistent, clear, and uniform instructions for authors are required
Jean Iwaz
Science Editing.2022; 9(2): 142. CrossRef
Characteristics of high research performance authors in the field of library and information science and those of their articles
Yu-Wei Chang
Scientometrics.2021; 126(4): 3373. CrossRef
Impact of a new institutional medical journal on professional identity development and academic cultural change: A qualitative study
Victoria Hayes, Emma Williams, Kathleen M. Fairfield, Carolyne Falank, Dina McKelvy, Robert Bing‐You
Learned Publishing.2021; 34(4): 602. CrossRef
Are articles in library and information science (LIS) journals primarily contributed to by LIS authors?
Yu-Wei Chang
Scientometrics.2019; 121(1): 81. CrossRef

Increased number of papers co-authored by professor and his students in humanities and social sciences journals published in Korea: Rae Seong Hong, Eun Seong Hwang; Sci Ed. 2017;4(1):12-17. Published online February 20, 2017; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.83

11,787 View
183 Download

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material: Humanities and social sciences studies in Korea have remarkably low rates of co-authorship between professors and students. We chose a bibliometrics-based approach to characterize changes in the ratio of joint authorship between professors and students. Articles classified in the humanities and social sciences sectors that were published in journals registered in the Korean Citation Index during 2 phases over a 10-year period—2004 to 2006 (phase 1) and 2011 to 2013 (phase 2)—were used as the main source for the analysis. The study results can be summarized as follows: first, the overall number of co-authored articles drastically increased from phase 1 to phase 2; the percentage of co-authorship articles increased from 34.8% to 47.7%, and the percentage of co-authorship between students and professors rose from 9.9% to 20.7%. This trend was particularly noticeable in the social sciences, such as accounting, social welfare, and economics/business administration. Second, papers written by scholars from Seoul National University, Yonsei University, and Korea University were often published in high-impact factor journals. Among those articles, the rate of professor-student co-authorship increased by 21.6% for 7 years. Third, the increase in professor-student co-authored articles published in high- impact factor journals was even sharper. These findings indicate that perceptions of professor-student co-authorship have changed in the humanities and social sciences. In the near future, positive perceptions toward joint research and joint authorship between professors and students are expected to become more widespread.

Increasing number of authors per paper in Korean science and technology papers: Hyunju Jang, Kihong Kim, Sun Huh, Hyungsun Kim; Sci Ed. 2016;3(2):80-89. Published online August 20, 2016; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.70

16,380 View
209 Download
4 Web of Science
5 Crossref

Abstract PDF

We examined changes in the number of authors per paper for science and technology papers (agricultural sciences, engineering and technologies, medical sciences, and natural sciences) in Korea. We employed the Scopus database to examine the change in the number of authors in papers, which were published from 2000 to 2015 in the 234 Korean academic journals indexed on Scopus. We found that the global trend of growth in the number of authors per paper is evident in Korea as well. While there was little evidence of a correlation with the citation per paper, a positive correlation was found between with the field-weighted citation impact, another measure of a paper’s impact, in medical and natural science papers. In terms of the type of collaboration, we found that international collaboration papers had the highest number of authors, followed by national and institutional collaborations. The number of authors per paper was highest for those published in the top 10% journals by Source Normalized Impact per Paper, followed by Scopus-indexed journals, while papers published in Korea Citation Index had the lowest number of authors per paper. We propose that the rise in the number of authors per paper in Korean papers may be ascribed to many Korean research programs encouraging group research and the widespread availability of the internet, which has stimulated joint research efforts and encouraged international collaboration.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

From Solo to Collaborative: The Global Increase in Neuroscience Authors Over Two Decades
Mariella Segreti, Ann Paul, Pierpaolo Pani, Aldo Genovesio, Emiliano Brunamonti
European Journal of Neuroscience.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Analysis of Research Performance and Trends in Environmental Science
Won-Gi Shin, Moon-Ki Park, Da-Hyeon Kim, Hyun-Ju Jang, Tae-Sun Min
Journal of Environmental Science International.2020; 29(3): 283. CrossRef
Already, But Not Yet: Ending Unethical Practices in Authorship
Young-Chul Jung
Psychiatry Investigation.2018; 15(4): 335. CrossRef
Comparison between Korean and foreign authors concerning the citation impact of Korean journals indexed in Scopus
Hyunju Jang, Ki Woo Chun, Hyungsun Kim
Science Editing.2018; 6(1): 47. CrossRef
Rapid growth of international collaboration from articles indexed in Scopus database by researchers in Korea from 2006 to 2015
Yeonok Chung, Kihong Kim
Science Editing.2017; 4(1): 18. CrossRef

Training Material

Peer review golden rules and good practice checklist: Irene Hames; Sci Ed. 2016;3(1):36-42. Published online February 19, 2016; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.61

54,459 View
487 Download
3 Web of Science
3 Crossref

Abstract PDF

This is a republication of Appendix 1, The Golden Rules and the Peer-Review Good Practice Checklist, from the author’s book, Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals: guidelines for good practice, published in 2007 by Wiley-Blackwell in association with ALPSP (the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers), with the permission of the author and publisher (ISBN: 978-1-4051-3159-9, http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/ productCd-1405131594.html).

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Ten Tips for Performing Your First Peer Review: The Next Step for the Aspiring Academic Plastic Surgeon
Martin Frendø, Andreas Frithioff, Steven Arild Wuyts Andersen
Archives of Plastic Surgery.2022; 49(04): 538. CrossRef
Do’s and Don’ts for a Good Reviewer of Scientific Papers: A Beginner’s Brief Decalogue
Miltos K. Lazarides, George S. Georgiadis, Nikolaos Papanas
The International Journal of Lower Extremity Wounds.2020; 19(3): 227. CrossRef
Writing highly effective reviews of a scientific manuscript
Garry J. Scrimgeour, Shelley D. Pruss
Freshwater Science.2016; 35(4): 1076. CrossRef

Original Articles

Analysis of journal attributes of 403 KoreaScience journals from the viewpoint of author: Sung-Nam Cho, Tae-Sul Seo, Hee-Yoon Choi, Sun-A Park; Sci Ed. 2016;3(1):19-25. Published online February 19, 2016; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.58

16,490 View
139 Download
2 Web of Science
3 Crossref

Abstract PDF

Korea is a country in which journal industry is rapidly increasing recently. KoreaScience is a typical Korean scientific and technical journal database that may be used to analyze Korean journals. A set of journal attributes reflecting the requirements in view of submitting authors was derived and some characteristics of KoreaScience journals such as subject distribution, launch year, publication frequency, publication language, and open access were quantitatively analyzed according to the journal attributes. As a result, it was found that Korean journals are published in almost all subject categories except some subject categories under Physics. The number of journal has been increased rapidly during the period between 1980s and 1990s. Journals published quarterly are 45%. Journals published in English are 31%. Open access journals are 26% while 72% free access.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Temporal characteristics of journals indexed in both KCI and Scopus: analyzing journal age, coverage and journal metrics
Eungi Kim, Madhu Atteraya, Shreejana Gnawali
Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Subject area mapping of Indonesian journals from GARUDA (Garba Rujukan Digital) and SINTA (Science Technology Index) databases: a descriptive study
Eko Didik Widianto, Hadiyanto, Teddy Mantoro, Arseto Satriyo Nugroho
Science Editing.2025; 12(2): 175. CrossRef
Study on Development of Journal and Article Visualization Services
Sung-Nam Cho, Tae-Sul Seo
Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science.2016; 50(2): 183. CrossRef

An ontology-based biomedical research paper authoring support tool: Senator Jeong, Sejin Nam, Hyun-Young Park; Sci Ed. 2014;1(1):37-42. Published online February 13, 2014; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.2014.1.37

24,126 View
128 Download
5 Web of Science
2 Crossref

Abstract PDF

This work aims to develop a paper authoring support system that helps biomedical scientists to organize their ideas for a specific discourse purpose. As an initial step toward the goal, this study developed an abstract authoring support tool that provides candidate lexical bundles organized according to the introduction, methods, results, and discussion (IMRAD) structure. Lexical bundles were extracted from the sentences in 152,083 structured abstracts of the PubMed Central open access subset and their distribution was analyzed by IMRAD section. To organize lexical bundles according to IMRAD, the Lexical Bundle Ontology was built. A Journal Article Tag Suite compliant authoring support tool was implemented. This tool lists candidate lexical bundles corresponding to authors’ discourse purposes in a specific section and thereby helps to complete sentences. We expect this tool be useful, at least in biomedical abstract writing, to organize an author’s ideas to achieve a specific discourse purpose. This tool is targeted primarily at biomedical scientists whose mother tongue is not English; however, English native speakers may find it useful as well.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Structuralizing biomedical abstracts with discriminative linguistic features
Sejin Nam, Senator Jeong, Sang-Kyun Kim, Hong-Gee Kim, Victoria Ngo, Nansu Zong
Computers in Biology and Medicine.2016; 79: 276. CrossRef
Editing and publishing scholarly journals in the internet age
Kihong Kim
Science Editing.2014; 1(1): 2. CrossRef

First
Prev
Page of 1
Next
Last

Search