Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Science Editing : Science Editing

OPEN ACCESS
SEARCH
Search

Search

Page Path
HOME > Search
9 "Authors"
Filter
Filter
Article category
Keywords
Publication year
Authors
Funded articles
Original Article
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
  • 1,067 View
  • 65 Download
AbstractAbstract PDFSupplementary 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.
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
  • 5,423 View
  • 434 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 Articles
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
  • 4,161 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
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
  • 5,060 View
  • 339 Download
AbstractAbstract 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 Study
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
  • 5,041 View
  • 113 Download
  • 4 Web of Science
  • 3 Crossref
AbstractAbstract 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  
  • 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
  • 6,294 View
  • 199 Download
  • 6 Web of Science
  • 3 Crossref
AbstractAbstract 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  
  • 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; : 1.     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
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
  • 8,992 View
  • 176 Download
AbstractAbstract PDFSupplementary 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.
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
  • 26,995 View
  • 457 Download
  • 3 Web of Science
  • 3 Crossref
AbstractAbstract 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 Article
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
  • 12,992 View
  • 132 Download
  • 1 Crossref
AbstractAbstract 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  
  • 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

Science Editing : Science Editing