Science Editing

Original Articles

A two-stage registry-anchored approach for precision improvement in organization name recognition from PubMed affiliation strings: a validation study: Inmo Kang, Joonmo Park, Heesoo Jeong, Seyoung Chung, Changmin Jeon, Seongwuk Moon; Sci Ed. 2026;13(1):46-50. Published online February 9, 2026; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.396

8 View
1 Download

Abstract PDF: Purpose
Reliable bibliometric analysis requires the accurate linkage of heterogeneous affiliation strings to persistent organizational identifiers. Generic natural language processing tools frequently fail at this task because they tend to prioritize coverage rather than precision. This study evaluated whether anchoring an entity-linking model to the Research Organization Registry improved precision relative to generic tools.
Methods
We developed a conservative, two-stage model. First, using a normalized registry corpus, we applied rule-based exact matching with geographic validation. Second, selective fuzzy matching was applied only to the remaining nonmatched affiliations. We evaluated model performance against an off-the-shelf spaCy named entity recognition baseline using a manually adjudicated gold standard dataset derived from PubMed Digital Health records. Finally, we assessed the comparative advantage of our model using nonparametric paired comparison tests and bootstrap methods.
Results
Our two-stage approach achieved substantially higher precision (0.97) and recall (0.93) than both the generic baseline (precision, 0.75; recall, 0.47) and unconstrained fuzzy matching models (precision, 0.77; recall, 0.83). This balanced improvement in precision and recall resulted in the highest F1 score (0.95). The ablation study further confirmed that the “exact matching first” strategy was structurally necessary to prevent the inflation of false positives observed when unconstrained fuzzy matching was applied.
Conclusion
Anchoring entity resolution to a canonical registry using a tiered matching strategy substantially enhances the precision of institutional attribution. This approach provides a robust method for correcting metadata quality in editorial and repository workflows.

Retraction patterns in Scopus-indexed publications from South Africa, Egypt, Nigeria, Tunisia, and Morocco (2014–2023): a bibliometric analysis: Ridha Mhamdi; Sci Ed. 2026;13(1):4-13. Published online January 29, 2026; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.390

62 View
5 Download

Abstract PDF: Purpose
This study analyzed retraction patterns and regional nuances in the five African countries with the highest scientific output—South Africa, Egypt, Nigeria, Tunisia, and Morocco—to inform integrity policies.
Methods
Retraction dynamics were examined using data from Scopus, SciVal, and the Retraction Watch Database.
Results
Substantial variation was observed in retraction rates, with Egypt showing an exceptionally high rate, nearly eight times that of South Africa, and reaching a peak of 35 retractions per 10,000 publications in 2022. This increase was strongly associated with collaborations with Saudi Arabia, as 75% of Egypt’s retractions involved co-authorship with Saudi researchers. Unreliable or fraudulent content remained the most common retraction reason across all countries, with paper mills and randomly generated content being major contributors. Although falsification and manipulation occurred, they were less frequent overall. Plagiarism was particularly prominent in research from Tunisia (29.6%) and Morocco (30.3%), while duplication was most common in research from Egypt (25.5%) and Morocco (24.2%). Fake peer review constituted a major problem in Tunisia (34.6%) and Egypt (31.1%). Authorship issues were most frequently observed in studies from Nigeria (19.0%) and Tunisia (21.0%), and ethical issues appeared to be relatively infrequent across the region. Retractions disproportionately affected Q1 and Q2 journals and spanned a wide range of disciplines, with medicine and engineering being the most impacted. Notably, retracted articles continue to accumulate citations after retraction, indicating persistent challenges in research integrity.
Conclusion
The findings underscore the need for strengthened research oversight and expanded ethics training to address the concerning retraction trends observed, particularly in Egypt and in collaborative research with Saudi Arabia.

Scientific research trends of North Korea from 1976 to 2024: a Scopus-based bibliometric study: Dae Un Hong, Eunbin An, Junhyoung Kim, Jihoo Lim; Sci Ed. 2025;12(2):167-174. Published online August 7, 2025; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.381

1,910 View
168 Download

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material: Purpose
This study presents a bibliometric analysis of research articles authored by North Korean researchers and indexed in Scopus between 1976 and 2024. By incorporating recent data, it updates previous findings and examines how developments such as COVID-19 border closures have affected domestic research activity and international collaboration.
Methods
Data were collected on June 15, 2025, using refined Scopus search parameters that addressed earlier limitations and improved the identification of records lacking country information. After data cleaning, the final dataset comprised 1,344 domestic articles and 1,210 internationally co-authored articles. These were analyzed by publication volume and institutional affiliation.
Results
The study compares trends before and after 2020, distinguishing between domestic and international research. It evaluates North Korea’s internal research capacity based on the number of contributing domestic authors and explores interinstitutional collaboration within the country. Major international partners were identified by analyzing co-author affiliations, with emphasis on China’s leading role. Additionally, network analysis was conducted to identify key countries involved in international collaboration and to visualize the centrality of cooperative institutions.
Conclusion
The findings reveal a marked increase in domestic publications in recent years, suggesting a shift toward greater self-reliance in response to external constraints such as the COVID-19 pandemic and international sanctions. The results also indicate steady enhancement of North Korea’s internal research capacity. Despite global isolation, international collaboration has remained relatively stable, partially sustained by long-standing partnerships with Chinese institutions. Based on these trends, continued growth in domestic research output and international engagement is anticipated.

Training Material

The current state of ethics in relation to patents: Seryeong Kim, Jeong-Ju Yoo; Sci Ed. 2025;12(2):225-230. Published online August 5, 2025; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.376

1,282 View
36 Download

Abstract PDF: Patents are intended to incentivize innovation by granting inventors exclusive rights; however, in the biomedical sciences, they frequently intersect with ethical dilemmas involving public access, potential harms, and distributive justice. Legal frameworks, such as those in Korea and international treaties, prohibit patents on inventions that violate public health or morality. Nevertheless, identifying ethical risks at the application stage remains challenging. High-profile controversies, such as gene patenting (e.g., BRCA1/2 and CRISPR-Cas9) and embryonic stem cell patents, highlight divergent national standards and ongoing debates regarding the public domain status of genetic information and the permissibility of inventions derived from embryonic research. Mechanisms like compulsory licensing, exemplified during the COVID-19 pandemic, attempt to balance exclusive rights with urgent public needs, but these approaches have limitations. Despite the increasing importance of these concerns, internationally unified ethical guidelines for researchers, journal editors, and policymakers are lacking. We recommend the development of clearer ethical standards and practical frameworks to help stakeholders address the moral complexities of biomedical patents and to support responsible innovation and equitable access to life-saving technologies.

Original Articles

Trends in the use of positive words as a form of rhetorical spin in the titles and abstracts of 73,049 PubMed-indexed psychiatry articles: a bibliometric study: Joshua Wang; Sci Ed. 2025;12(2):124-130. Published online July 30, 2025; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.371

1,367 View
84 Download

Abstract PDF: Purpose
Overemphasizing or distorting a study’s findings through spin compromises the interpretation of research both within the academic community and among the public more broadly. However, large-scale analyses of the use of positive words as rhetorical spin in psychiatry have not yet been conducted.
Methods
Titles and abstracts from articles published in 26 top-quartile general psychiatry journals between 2005 and 2024 were analyzed. PubMed searches identified the annual number of articles containing at least one positive, neutral, or negative word from a predefined list associated with rhetorical spin. Separate analyses compared authorship teams with and without at least one affiliation from countries where English is the primary national language (e.g., Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, or the United States).
Results
Positive words were used more frequently over time (τ=0.947, two-sided P<0.00001), with a 1.97-fold increase in the proportion of abstracts containing positive rhetoric from 2005 (9.80%) to 2024 (19.27%). Authorship teams from English-speaking countries were significantly more likely to employ positive rhetoric (χ²=213.63, df=1, P<0.00001). Authors increasingly described their studies as “novel,” “unique,” “promising,” and “robust.”
Conclusion
Despite heightened awareness of its negative impact on scientific integrity, the use of rhetorical spin continues to grow within psychiatry. Greater efforts are necessary to promote intellectually humble and accurate reporting of research findings in psychiatric literature.

Amount, cause, and citation frequency of retracted nursing publications from 1997 to 2024 in PubMed: a bibliometric study: Marlen Yessirkepov, Zhanat Togaibekova, Burhan Fatih Kocyigit, Ahmet Akyol; Sci Ed. 2025;12(2):109-113. Published online April 30, 2025; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.368

2,654 View
107 Download

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material: Purpose
Retraction provides an opportunity to correct the literature by restricting the spread of incomplete, erroneous, or biased information among the scientific community. This study aimed to delineate the features of retracted publications in the nursing field.
Methods
This literature investigation identified all retracted nursing papers in PubMed. It included information on each paper’s title, authors, publication date, retraction date, journal, article category, corresponding author’s nationality, and rationale for retraction. Citation statistics were acquired from Scopus.
Results
After excluding publications not relevant to the field, 457 papers remained for further analysis from an initial pool of 866. The earliest retracted article appeared in 2007 (n=3), with the peak occurring in 2023 (n=359). The three predominant countries were China (n=398), the United States (n=9), and Iran (n=7). The primary grounds for retraction were peer review issues (n=395), fraud (n=353), and ethical concerns (n=130). The retracted publications accumulated a total of 1,659 citations, averaging 3.63 per article, with 909 citations (1.99 per article) recorded after retraction.
Conclusion
This study highlights that retractions of nursing-related publications are frequently linked to peer review challenges, fraud, and ethical concerns. A disproportionate number of retracted articles originated from China. Comprehensive peer review, ethical oversight, and fraud prevention are needed to preserve the integrity of nursing research.

Case Study

The Korea Research Institute of Bioscience and Biotechnology’s number of articles and turnaround time before and after the COVID-19 pandemic: a case study: Sang-Jun Kim; Sci Ed. 2025;12(1):50-56. Published online February 12, 2025; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.361

2,530 View
69 Download

Abstract PDF: This case study investigated changes in research articles from the Korea Research Institute of Bioscience and Biotechnology (KRIBB) during the COVID-19 pandemic to share information with stakeholders in the research and publishing communities. Data on research published from 2017 to 2024 were collected by searching the database for the number of research articles indexed in Web of Science’s Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE), and then extracting the publication date of research articles from the KRIBB’s paper management system. After the number of WoS-SCIE research articles was scaled down by the corresponding number of KRIBB’s SCIE articles in 2017, we analyzed differences in the publication turnaround times of KRIBB’s research articles based on whether MDPI was involved. In both WoS-SCIE and KRIBB data, the impact of MDPI exhibited a clear decline in 2023, a trend that continued into 2024. Generally, KRIBB’s non-MDPI research articles were published more rapidly in high-frequency journals, journals with low impact factors, and for COVID-19–related topics; however, this difference gradually diminished. In 2023, there was a notable reversal from a decrease to an increase in publication speed following COVID-19, along with a narrowing of the gaps between different stages of publication. It remains uncertain whether this trend will continue. Collecting additional similar case studies could provide a more accurate understanding of the changes and trends in the article publishing industry during the COVID-19 period.

Original Articles

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

4,088 View
200 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.

Improving reviewer selection in Open Journal Systems using a Scopus search application programming interface in the Journal of Information System Engineering and Business Intelligence: Indra Kharisma Raharjana, Badrus Zaman, Oktavia Intifada Husna, Rizfi Ferdiansyah, Aretha Seno Putri, Fariska Dwi Kartika Sari; Sci Ed. 2025;12(1):20-27. Published online February 6, 2025; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.356

3,159 View
135 Download
1 Web of Science

Abstract PDF: Purpose
The peer review process is essential for maintaining the quality of scientific publications. However, identifying reviewers who possess the necessary expertise can be challenging. In Open Journal Systems (OJS), which is commonly utilized by journals, the most effective method of inviting reviewers is when they are already registered in the system. This study seeks to improve the efficiency and accuracy of the reviewer selection process to ensure high-quality peer reviews.
Methods
We introduced a process innovation to analyze users within OJS and obtain recommendations for potential reviewers possessing the relevant expertise for the manuscript under review. This study collected user data from OJS as potential reviewers and utilized information from the Scopus search application programming interface (API). We extracted authors’ data from the Scopus API to obtain their Scopus IDs, which were then used to scrape publication data of potential reviewers. The system matched the previous works of reviewers with the title and abstract of the manuscript using term frequency-inverse document frequency and cosine similarity algorithms.
Results
The system was evaluated by comparing its recommendations with the assessments made by the editorial team. This evaluation yielded precision, mean average precision, and mean reciprocal rank values of 0.47, 0.77, and 0.87, respectively.
Conclusion
The results clearly demonstrate the system’s ability to provide relevant reviewer recommendations. This system offers significant benefits by assisting editors in identifying suitable reviewer candidates from the existing user database in OJS, particularly for the evaluation of manuscripts.

Reviews

Bibliometric characteristics of retracted publications in pediatrics research: a systematic review: Zhi-Yi Yang, Li-Li Yang; Sci Ed. 2025;12(1):4-11. Published online December 11, 2024; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.351

2,934 View
142 Download

Abstract PDF: Purpose
In recent years, the number of retractions in biomedical literature has increased. Analyses of retracted publications can provide important information on the characteristics of retractions and may help reduce this trend. This study aimed to systematically analyze the time, source, citations, and reasons for retraction of pediatric research papers.
Methods
A systematic review of retracted articles related to pediatrics was performed in PubMed and Web of Science databases from their inception through December 31, 2023. Excluded from the review were articles unrelated to pediatric studies, conference proceedings, non-English articles, duplicates, and articles that could not be identified. The data extracted and analyzed included the title, publication year, retraction year, country, journal, impact factor, the party who raised the retraction, the reason for retraction, citation count, and the authors of the articles.
Results
The interval between publication and retraction ranged from 0 to 45 years, and the number of retracted papers peaked in 2023. China and the United States had the most retractions, and China had the highest rate of retraction. The proportion of retractions from China increased over time. Several journals published by Hindawi had many retractions compared to other journals. The most frequent reasons were publication issues, errors, and fraud/fabrication.
Conclusion
This study provides a comprehensive overview of retracted articles in pediatric research. Our findings suggest that it is important to scrutinize the process of research and publication, to identify and counter research misconduct, and to make the instructions, procedures, and outcomes of publication more transparent for researchers, publishers and regulators.

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

33,008 View
1,399 Download
22 Web of Science
21 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
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 Article

Adherence to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors–recommended gender equity policy in nursing journals listed in MEDLINE or PubMed Central: a descriptive study: Eun Jeong Ko, Geum Hee Jeong; Sci Ed. 2024;11(1):33-37. Published online February 20, 2024; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.328

4,679 View
105 Download
1 Crossref

Abstract PDF

Purpose
The evolving landscape of nursing research emphasizes inclusive representation. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has established guidelines to ensure the fair representation of various demographic variables, including age, sex, and ethnicity. This study aimed to evaluate the adherence of nursing journals indexed in MEDLINE or PubMed Central to the ICMJE’s directives on gender equity, given that journals indexed in MEDLINE and PubMed Central typically adhere to the ICMJE’s guidelines.
Methods
A descriptive literature review methodology was employed to analyze 160 nursing journals listed in two databases as of July 28, 2023. The website of each journal was searched, and the most recent original article from each was selected. These articles were then evaluated for their alignment with the ICMJE guidelines on gender equity. Descriptive statistics were applied to categorize and enumerate the cases.
Results
Of the articles reviewed from 160 journals, 115 dealt with human populations. Of these, 93 required a description of gender equity. Within this subset, 83 articles distinguished between the genders of human subjects. Gender-based interpretations were provided in 15 articles, while another 68 did not offer an interpretation of differences by gender. Among the 10 articles that did not delineate gender, only two provided a rationale for this omission.
Conclusion
Among recent articles published in the nursing journals indexed in MEDLINE and PubMed Central, only 16.1% presented clear gender analyses. These findings highlight the need for editors to strengthen their dedication to gender equity within their editorial policies.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Academic journal website from the user’s perspective
A. V. Silnichaya, D. I. Trushkov, A. Volkova, M. S. Konyaev
Science Editor and Publisher.2024; 9(1): 2. CrossRef

Review

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

16,224 View
523 Download
13 Web of Science
12 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

The Future of Publication Ethics in University Research Systems: What Scenarios Exist for Publication Ethics?
Sara Dakhesh, Shahnaz Khademizadeh, Abdolhossein Farajpahlou, Hamid Farhadirad
Public Integrity.2026; : 1. 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
Exploring the Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Research Ethics - A Systematic Review
Gabriel Andrade-Hidalgo, Pedro Mio-Cango, Orlando Iparraguirre-Villanueva
Journal of Academic Ethics.2025; 23(3): 1053. CrossRef
Meeting report on the 8th Asian Science Editors’ Conference and Workshop 2024
Eun Jung Park
Science Editing.2025; 12(1): 66. CrossRef
Research and publication ethics with generative artificial intelligence-assisted tools
Cheol-Heui Yun
Science Editing.2025; 12(1): 1. CrossRef
The assisted Technology dilemma: a reflection on AI chatbots use and risks while reshaping the peer review process in scientific research
Helmi Ben Saad, Ismail Dergaa, Hatem Ghouili, Halil İbrahim Ceylan, Karim Chamari, Wissem Dhahbi
AI & SOCIETY.2025; 40(7): 5649. CrossRef
Plagiarism in the system of academic integrity in medical research (part 2)
M.V. Krasnoselskyi, N.O. Artamonova, О.М. Sukhina, T.V. Rublova, Yu.V. Pavlichenko
Український радіологічний та онкологічний журнал.2025; 33(1): 113. CrossRef
Prompt engineering for generative artificial intelligence chatbots in health research: A practical guide for traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine researchers
Jeremy Y. Ng
Integrative Medicine Research.2025; 14(4): 101222. CrossRef
Adapt or Lag Behind: Why Researchers in Traditional, Complementary, and Integrative Medicine Must Master Prompt Engineering in the Era of Artificial Intelligence
Jeremy Y. Ng
Perspectives on Integrative Medicine.2025; 4(3): 127. CrossRef
Regaining Scientific Authority in a Post-Truth Landscape
Andrew M. Petzold, Marcia D. Nichols
Publications.2025; 13(4): 65. CrossRef
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

Training Materials

Get Full Text Research (GetFTR): can it be a good tool for researchers?: Kwangil Oh; Sci Ed. 2023;10(2):186-189. Published online August 17, 2023; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.311

5,297 View
216 Download
1 Crossref

Abstract PDF

Technological advances have been an integral part of discussions related to journal publishing in recent years. This article presents Get Full Text Research (GetFTR), a discovery solution launched by five major publishers: the American Chemical Society, Elsevier, Springer Nature, Taylor & Francis Group, and Wiley. These founding publishers announced the development of this new solution in 2019, and its pilot service was launched just 4 months later. The GetFTR solutions streamlines access to not only open access resources but also to subscription-based resources. The publishers have assured that this solution will be beneficial for all relevant stakeholders involved in the journal publication process, including publishers, researchers, integrators, and libraries. They highlighted that researchers will have the ability to access published articles with minimal effort or steps, benefitting from existing (single sign-on) access technologies, ideally accessing the article PDF with a single click. While GetFTR is free for integrators and researchers, publishers are required to pay an annual subscription fee. To lower the barrier for participation, GetFTR supports smaller publishers by offering them a discount based on the number of digital object identifiers (DOIs), as recorded in Crossref data. While this project appears promising, some initial concerns were raised, particularly regarding user data control, which the project has responded to by more closely engaging the librarian community and by providing further information on how GetFTR supports user privacy.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Lost in citations: Why standard metrics fail archaeology and regional scholarship. A critical analysis of bibliographic indexing and research evaluation.
Andrea Di Renzoni
Ex Novo: Journal of Archaeology.2025; 9: 55. CrossRef

The research nexus and Principles of Open Scholarly Infrastructure (POSI): sharing our goal of an open, connected ecosystem of research objects: Rachael Lammey; Sci Ed. 2023;10(2):190-194. Published online July 31, 2023; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.315

4,219 View
221 Download
1 Web of Science
1 Crossref

Abstract PDF

As a community, it is impossible to ignore the fact that sharing research and information related to research is a much broader proposition than sharing an article, book, or conference paper. In supporting an evolving scholarly record, making connections between research organizations, contributors, actions, and objects helps give a more complete picture of the scholarly record, which open infrastructure organizations like Crossref call the research nexus. Crossref is working to support this evolution and is thinking about the metadata it collects via its members and that it supplements and curates, to make it broader than the rigid structures traditionally provided by content types. Furthermore, because of Crossref’s commitment to the Principles of Open Scholarly Infrastructure (POSI), this network of information will be global and openly available for anyone in the community to access and reuse. The present article describes this vision in more detail, including why it is increasingly important to support the links between research and elements that contribute or are related to that research; how Crossref, its members, and the wider community can support it; and the work and planning Crossref is doing to make it easier to achieve this.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions received the top-ranking Journal Impact Factor―9.3—in the category of Education, Scientific Disciplines in the 2023 Journal Citation Ranking by Clarivate
Sun Huh
Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions.2024; 21: 16. CrossRef

Original Article

Research information service development plan based on an analysis of the digital scholarship lifecycle experience of humanities scholars in Korea: a qualitative study: Jungyeoun Lee, Eunkyung Chung; Sci Ed. 2023;10(2):127-134. Published online July 28, 2023; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.309

4,607 View
310 Download

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material: Purpose
Given the impact of information technologies, the research environment for humanities scholars is transforming into digital scholarship. This study presents a foundational investigation for developing digital scholarship (DS) research support services. It also proposes a plan for sustainable information services through examining the current status of DS in Korea, as well as accessing, processing, implementing, disseminating, and preserving interdisciplinary digital data.
Methods
Qualitative interview data were collected from September 7 to 11, 2020. The interviews were conducted with scholars at the research director level who had participated in the DS research project in Korea. Data were coded using Nvivo 14, and cross-analysis was performed among researchers to extract central nodes and derive service elements.
Results
This study divided DS into five stages: research plan, research implementation, publishing results, dissemination of research results, and preservation and reuse. This paper also presents the library DS information services required for each stage. The characteristic features of the DS research cycle are the importance of collaboration, converting analog resources to data, data modeling and technical support for the analysis process, humanities data curation, drafting a research data management plan, and international collaboration.
Conclusion
Libraries should develop services based on open science and data management plan policies. Examples include a DS project liaison service, data management, datafication, digital publication repositories, a digital preservation plan, and a web archiving service. Data sharing for humanities research resources made possible through international collaboration will contribute to the expansion of new digital culture research.

Review

How to review and assess a systematic review and meta-analysis article: Seung-Kwon Myung; Sci Ed. 2023;10(2):119-126. Published online April 28, 2023; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.306

6,846 View
389 Download
3 Web of Science
3 Crossref

Abstract PDF

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become central in many research fields, particularly medicine. They offer the highest level of evidence in evidence-based medicine and support the development and revision of clinical practice guidelines, which offer recommendations for clinicians caring for patients with specific diseases and conditions. This review summarizes the concepts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses and provides guidance on reviewing and assessing such papers. A systematic review refers to a review of a research question that uses explicit and systematic methods to identify, select, and critically appraise relevant research. In contrast, a meta-analysis is a quantitative statistical analysis that combines individual results on the same research question to estimate the common or mean effect. Conducting a meta-analysis involves defining a research topic, selecting a study design, searching literature in electronic databases, selecting relevant studies, and conducting the analysis. One can assess the findings of a meta-analysis by interpreting a forest plot and a funnel plot and by examining heterogeneity. When reviewing systematic reviews and meta-analyses, several essential points must be considered, including the originality and significance of the work, the comprehensiveness of the database search, the selection of studies based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, subgroup analyses by various factors, and the interpretation of the results based on the levels of evidence. This review will provide readers with helpful guidance to help them read, understand, and evaluate these articles.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Threat Acquisition and Extinction Differences Between Patients With Panic Disorder or Specific Phobia and Non-Clinical Controls: A Systematic Review
Kane Steggles, Matthew Garner, Jayne Morriss
Neurobiology of Learning and Memory.2026; 223: 108125. CrossRef
Unravelling the associations between dissociation and emotion (dys)regulation: A multidimensional meta-analytic review
Serena Bruno, Camilla Tacchino, Gerardo Anconetani, Patrizia Velotti
Journal of Affective Disorders.2025; 380: 808. CrossRef
Attachment Dimensions and Infertility: Exploring Psychological Outcomes Through Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Camilla Tacchino, Rosetta Castellano, Guyonne Rogier, Teresa Cocchiaro, Alessandro Dal Lago, Rocco Rago, Patrizia Velotti
Journal of Marital and Family Therapy.2025;[Epub] CrossRef

Training Material

What to tell and never tell a reviewer: Jean Iwaz; Sci Ed. 2023;10(2):181-185. Published online April 28, 2023; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.305

6,140 View
245 Download

Abstract PDF: The specialized literature abounds in recommendations about the most desirable technical ways of answering reviewers’ comments on a submitted manuscript. However, not all publications mention authors’ and/or reviewers’ feelings or reactions about what they may read or write in their respective reports, and even fewer publications tackle openly what may or may not be said in a set of answers to a reviewer’s comments. In answering reviewers’ comments, authors are often attentive to the technical or rational aspects of the task but might forget some of its relational aspects. In their answers, authors are expected to make every effort to abide by reviewers’ suggestions, including discussing major criticisms, editing the illustrations, or implementing minor corrections; abstain from questioning a reviewer’s competence or willingness to write a good review, including full and attentive reading and drafting useful comments; clearly separate their answers to each reviewer; avoid skipping, merging, or reordering reviewers’ comments; and, finally, specify the changes made. Authors are advised to call on facts, logic, and some diplomacy, but never on artifice, concealment, or flattery. Failing to do so erodes the trust between authors and reviewers, whereas integrity is expected and highly valued. The guiding principle should always be honesty.

Original Articles

Data sharing attitudes and practices of researchers in Korean government research institutes: a survey-based descriptive study: Jihyun Kim, Hyekyong Hwang, Youngim Jung, Sung-Nam Cho, Tae-Sul Seo; Sci Ed. 2023;10(1):71-77. Published online February 16, 2023; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.299

5,935 View
304 Download
5 Web of Science
5 Crossref

Abstract PDF

Purpose
This study explored to what extent and how researchers in five Korean government research institutes that implement research data management practices share their research data and investigated the challenges they perceive regarding data sharing.
Methods
The study collected survey data from 224 respondents by posting a link to a SurveyMonkey questionnaire on the homepage of each of the five research institutes from June 15 to 29, 2022. Descriptive statistical analyses were conducted.
Results
Among 148 respondents with data sharing experience, the majority had shared some or most of their data. Restricted data sharing within a project was more common than sharing data with outside researchers on request or making data publicly available. Sharing data directly with researchers who asked was the most common method of data sharing, while sharing data via institutional repositories was the second most common method. The most frequently cited factors impeding data sharing included the time and effort required to organize data, concerns about copyright or ownership of data, lack of recognition and reward, and concerns about data containing sensitive information.
Conclusion
Researchers need ongoing training and support on making decisions about access to data, which are nuanced rather than binary. Research institutes’ commitment to developing and maintaining institutional data repositories is also important to facilitate data sharing. To address barriers to data sharing, it is necessary to implement research data management services that help reduce effort and mitigate concerns about legal issues. Possible incentives for researchers who share data should also continue to be explored.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Six Elements in Promoting Open Science: Malaysian academicians’ research practices in information science
Wahidah Mohd Zain, Paula Lackie, Zahril Shahida Ahmad, Norkamarizal Kamarudin, Siti Khairiyah Nordin
Environment-Behaviour Proceedings Journal.2025; 10(SI31): 57. CrossRef
Factors influencing authors’ intention to continue publishing in data journals: a cross-sectional survey
Seungeun Lee, Jihyun Kim
Science Editing.2025; 12(2): 183. CrossRef
Korean scholarly journal editors’ and publishers’ attitudes towards journal data sharing policies and data papers (2023): a survey-based descriptive study
Hyun Jun Yi, Youngim Jung, Hyekyong Hwang, Sung-Nam Cho
Science Editing.2023; 10(2): 141. CrossRef
Data sharing and data governance in sub-Saharan Africa: Perspectives from researchers and scientists engaged in data-intensive research
Siti M. Kabanda, Nezerith Cengiz, Kanshukan Rajaratnam, Bruce W. Watson, Qunita Brown, Tonya M. Esterhuizen, Keymanthri Moodley
South African Journal of Science.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Identifying key factors and actions: Initial steps in the Open Science Policy Design and Implementation Process
Hanna Shmagun, Jangsup Shim, Jaesoo Kim, Kwang-Nam Choi, Charles Oppenheim
Journal of Information Science.2023;[Epub] CrossRef

Current status and demand for educational activities on publication ethics by academic organizations in Korea: a descriptive study: Yera Hur, Cheol-Heui Yun; Sci Ed. 2023;10(1):64-70. Published online February 16, 2023; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.298

5,590 View
240 Download
1 Web of Science
1 Crossref

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material

Purpose
This study aimed to examine the following overarching issues: the current status of research and publication ethics training conducted in Korean academic organizations and what needs to be done to reinforce research and publication ethics training.
Methods
A survey with 12 items was examined in a pilot survey, followed by a main survey that was distributed to 2,487 academic organizations. A second survey, which contained six additional questions, was dispatched to the same subjects. The results of each survey were analyzed by descriptive statistical analysis, content analysis, and comparative analysis.
Results
More than half of the academic organizations provided research and publication ethics training programs, with humanities and social sciences organizations giving more training than the others (χ²=11.190, df=2, P=0.004). The results showed that research and publication ethics training was held mostly once and less than an hour per year, mainly in a lecture format. No significant difference was found in the training content among academic fields. The academic organizations preferred case-based discussion training methods and wanted expert instructors who could give tailored training with examples.
Conclusion
A systematic training program that can develop ethics instructors tailored to specific academic fields and financial support from academic organizations can help scholarly editors resolve the apparent gap between the real and the ideal in ethics training, and ultimately to achieve the competency needed to train their own experts.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Influence of artificial intelligence and chatbots on research integrity and publication ethics
Payam Hosseinzadeh Kasani, Kee Hyun Cho, Jae-Won Jang, Cheol-Heui Yun
Science Editing.2024; 11(1): 12. CrossRef

Reviews

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

12,335 View
521 Download
10 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

An algorithm for the selection of reporting guidelines: Soo Young Kim; Sci Ed. 2023;10(1):13-18. Published online November 14, 2022; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.287

6,743 View
315 Download
3 Web of Science
3 Crossref

Abstract PDF

A reporting guideline can be defined as “a checklist, flow diagram, or structured text to guide authors in reporting a specific type of research, developed using explicit methodology.” A reporting guideline outlines the bare minimum of information that must be presented in a research report in order to provide a transparent and understandable explanation of what was done and what was discovered. Many reporting guidelines have been developed, and it has become important to select the most appropriate reporting guideline for a manuscript. Herein, I propose an algorithm for the selection of reporting guidelines. This algorithm was developed based on the research design classification system and the content presented for major reporting guidelines through the EQUATOR (Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research) network. This algorithm asks 10 questions: “is it a protocol,” “is it secondary research,” “is it an in vivo animal study,” “is it qualitative research,” “is it economic evaluation research,” “is it a diagnostic accuracy study or prognostic research,” “is it quality improvement research,” “is it a non-comparative study,” “is it a comparative study between groups,” and “is it an experimental study?” According to the responses, 16 appropriate reporting guidelines are suggested. Using this algorithm will make it possible to select reporting guidelines rationally and transparently.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

「주간 건강과 질병」 보고 지침 개발
수영 김, 석현 유, 소연 류, 선 허, 미나 하, 보율 최, 원영 정
Public Health Weekly Report.2025; 18(9): 399. 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
Why do editors of local nursing society journals strive to have their journals included in MEDLINE? A case study of the Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing
Sun Huh
Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing.2023; 29(3): 147. CrossRef

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
340 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.

Training Material

Participation Reports help Crossref members drive research further: Anna Tolwinska; Sci Ed. 2021;8(2):180-185. Published online August 20, 2021; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.253

6,673 View
113 Download
1 Web of Science
1 Crossref

Abstract PDF

This article aims to explain the key metadata elements listed in Participation Reports, why it’s important to check them regularly, and how Crossref members can improve their scores. Crossref members register a lot of metadata in Crossref. That metadata is machine-readable, standardized, and then shared across discovery services and author tools. This is important because richer metadata makes content more discoverable and useful to the scholarly community. It’s not always easy to know what metadata Crossref members register in Crossref. This is why Crossref created an easy-to-use tool called Participation Reports to show editors, and researchers the key metadata elements Crossref members register to make their content more useful. The key metadata elements include references and whether they are set to open, ORCID iDs, funding information, Crossmark metadata, licenses, full-text URLs for text-mining, and Similarity Check indexing, as well as abstracts. ROR IDs (Research Organization Registry Identifiers), that identify institutions will be added in the future. This data was always available through the Crossref ’s REST API (Representational State Transfer Application Programming Interface) but is now visualized in Participation Reports. To improve scores, editors should encourage authors to submit ORCIDs in their manuscripts and publishers should register as much metadata as possible to help drive research further.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Reflections on 4 years in the role of a Crossref ambassador in Korea
Jae Hwa Chang
Science Editing.2022; 9(1): 69. CrossRef

Case Study

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

10,102 View
189 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

Review

Ethical challenges regarding artificial intelligence in medicine from the perspective of scientific editing and peer review: Seong Ho Park, Young-Hak Kim, Jun Young Lee, Soyoung Yoo, Chong Jai Kim; Sci Ed. 2019;6(2):91-98. Published online June 19, 2019; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.164

20,016 View
500 Download
18 Web of Science
19 Crossref

Abstract PDF

This review article aims to highlight several areas in research studies on artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine that currently require additional transparency and explain why additional transparency is needed. Transparency regarding training data, test data and results, interpretation of study results, and the sharing of algorithms and data are major areas for guaranteeing ethical standards in AI research. For transparency in training data, clarifying the biases and errors in training data and the AI algorithms based on these training data prior to their implementation is critical. Furthermore, biases about institutions and socioeconomic groups should be considered. For transparency in test data and test results, authors should state if the test data were collected externally or internally and prospectively or retrospectively at first. It is necessary to distinguish whether datasets were convenience samples consisting of some positive and some negative cases or clinical cohorts. When datasets from multiple institutions were used, authors should report results from each individual institution. Full publication of the results of AI research is also important. For transparency in interpreting study results, authors should interpret the results explicitly and avoid over-interpretation. For transparency by sharing algorithms and data, sharing is required for replication and reproducibility of the research by other researchers. All of the above mentioned high standards regarding transparency of AI research in healthcare should be considered to facilitate the ethical conduct of AI research.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

New institutional theory and AI: toward rethinking of artificial intelligence in organizations
Ihor Rudko, Aysan Bashirpour Bonab, Maria Fedele, Anna Vittoria Formisano
Journal of Management History.2025; 31(2): 261. CrossRef
The role of explainability and transparency in fostering trust in AI healthcare systems: a systematic literature review, open issues and potential solutions
Christopher Ifeanyi Eke, Liyana Shuib
Neural Computing and Applications.2025; 37(4): 1999. CrossRef
Towards Integration of Artificial Intelligence into Medical Devices as a Real-Time Recommender System for Personalised Healthcare: State-of-the-Art and Future Prospects
Talha Iqbal, Mehedi Masud, Bilal Amin, Conor Feely, Mary Faherty, Tim Jones, Michelle Tierney, Atif Shahzad, Patricia Vazquez
Health Sciences Review.2024; : 100150. CrossRef
The Knowledge of Students at Bursa Faculty of Medicine towards Artificial Intelligence: A Survey Study
Deniz GÜVEN, Elif Güler KAZANCI, Ayşe ÖREN, Livanur SEVER, Pelin ÜNLÜ
Journal of Bursa Faculty of Medicine.2024; 2(1): 20. CrossRef
Benefits and Challenges of Using AI for Peer Review: A Study on Researchers’ Perceptions
Louie Giray
The Serials Librarian.2024; 85(5-6): 144. CrossRef
Artificial intelligence technology in MR neuroimaging. А radiologist’s perspective
G. E. Trufanov, A. Yu. Efimtsev
Russian Journal for Personalized Medicine.2023; 3(1): 6. CrossRef
The minefield of indeterminate thyroid nodules: could artificial intelligence be a suitable diagnostic tool?
Vincenzo Fiorentino, Cristina Pizzimenti, Mariausilia Franchina, Marina Gloria Micali, Fernanda Russotto, Ludovica Pepe, Gaetano Basilio Militi, Pietro Tralongo, Francesco Pierconti, Antonio Ieni, Maurizio Martini, Giovanni Tuccari, Esther Diana Rossi, Gu
Diagnostic Histopathology.2023; 29(8): 396. CrossRef
Ethical, legal, and social considerations of AI-based medical decision-support tools: A scoping review
Anto Čartolovni, Ana Tomičić, Elvira Lazić Mosler
International Journal of Medical Informatics.2022; 161: 104738. CrossRef
Transparency of Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare: Insights from Professionals in Computing and Healthcare Worldwide
Jose Bernal, Claudia Mazo
Applied Sciences.2022; 12(20): 10228. CrossRef
Artificial intelligence in the water domain: Opportunities for responsible use
Neelke Doorn
Science of The Total Environment.2021; 755: 142561. CrossRef
Artificial intelligence for ultrasonography: unique opportunities and challenges
Seong Ho Park
Ultrasonography.2021; 40(1): 3. CrossRef
Key Principles of Clinical Validation, Device Approval, and Insurance Coverage Decisions of Artificial Intelligence
Seong Ho Park, Jaesoon Choi, Jeong-Sik Byeon
Korean Journal of Radiology.2021; 22(3): 442. CrossRef
Is it alright to use artificial intelligence in digital health? A systematic literature review on ethical considerations
Nicholas RJ Möllmann, Milad Mirbabaie, Stefan Stieglitz
Health Informatics Journal.2021;[Epub] CrossRef
Presenting machine learning model information to clinical end users with model facts labels
Mark P. Sendak, Michael Gao, Nathan Brajer, Suresh Balu
npj Digital Medicine.2020;[Epub] CrossRef
Artificial intelligence with multi-functional machine learning platform development for better healthcare and precision medicine
Zeeshan Ahmed, Khalid Mohamed, Saman Zeeshan, XinQi Dong
Database.2020;[Epub] CrossRef
The ethics of machine learning in medical sciences: Where do we stand today?
Treena Basu, Sebastian Engel-Wolf, Olaf Menzer
Indian Journal of Dermatology.2020; 65(5): 358. CrossRef
Key principles of clinical validation, device approval, and insurance coverage decisions of artificial intelligence
Seong Ho Park, Jaesoon Choi, Jeong-Sik Byeon
Journal of the Korean Medical Association.2020; 63(11): 696. CrossRef
Reflections as 2020 comes to an end: the editing and educational environment during the COVID-19 pandemic, the power of Scopus and Web of Science in scholarly publishing, journal statistics, and appreciation to reviewers and volunteers
Sun Huh
Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions.2020; 17: 44. CrossRef
What should medical students know about artificial intelligence in medicine?
Seong Ho Park, Kyung-Hyun Do, Sungwon Kim, Joo Hyun Park, Young-Suk Lim
Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions.2019; 16: 18. CrossRef

Original Articles

Bibliographic and content analysis of physics papers from North Korea indexed in the Scopus from 2005 to 2018: Kihong Kim, Yeonok Chung; Sci Ed. 2019;6(1):35-40. Published online February 20, 2019; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.153

9,497 View
183 Download
8 Web of Science
6 Crossref

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material

Purpose
It aimed at assessing the current status of physics research in North Korea through a bibliographic and content analysis of the physics papers from North Korea indexed in the Scopus from 2005 to 2018.
Methods
The Scopus was searched on January 18, 2019 by using the search option ‘Affiliation city’ with “Pyongyang OR Chongjin OR Hamhung OR Sariwon OR Wonsan OR Kimchaek” as the city name and 171 physics papers from North Korea written in English were identified. By performing supplementary searches based on the author names and the references, 46 papers belonging to physics were added and the total of 217 papers were identified. They were classified by publication year, co-authors’ country, institution, subfield, journal and author. Representative North Korean physicists and the active subfields of physics were identified.
Results
The number of physics papers from North Korea has been growing rapidly in the recent years. Physics research activities in North Korea were extremely centralized in its capital, Pyongyang, where all major research institutions were located. Major research areas included condensed matter physics, optics and high energy physics and the large majority of papers were theoretical ones. From a bibliographic and content analysis, sixteen representative or notable physicists in North Korea were identified.
Conclusion
It appears that the North Korean government is actively encouraging researchers to publish more papers in international journals. There is a strong growth potential in physics research in North Korea. In order to achieve balanced development in physics, it is an important task to build competitive experimental groups.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Scientific research trends of North Korea from 1976 to 2024: a Scopus-based bibliometric study
Dae Un Hong, Eunbin An, Junhyoung Kim, Jihoo Lim
Science Editing.2025; 12(2): 167. CrossRef
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
Science Editing.2024; 11(1): 38. CrossRef
Mapping the development of North Korea's domestic nuclear research networks
Philip Baxter, Justin V. Hastings, Philseo Kim, Man‐Sung Yim
Review of Policy Research.2022; 39(2): 219. CrossRef
Document Network and Conceptual and Social Structures of Clinical Endoscopy from 2015 to July 2021 Based on the Web of Science Core Collection: A Bibliometric Study
Sun Huh
Clinical Endoscopy.2021; 54(5): 641. CrossRef
Bibliographic and content analysis of articles on education from Vietnam indexed in Scopus from 2009 to 2018
Cuong Huu Nguyen, Loc Thi My Nguyen, Trung Tran, Tien-Trung Nguyen
Science Editing.2020; 7(1): 45. CrossRef
A critical examination of international research conducted by North Korean authors: Increasing trends of collaborative research between China and North Korea
Eungi Kim, Eun Sil Kim
Scientometrics.2020; 124(1): 429. CrossRef

Comparison between Korean and foreign authors concerning the citation impact of Korean journals indexed in Scopus: Hyunju Jang, Ki Woo Chun, Hyungsun Kim; Sci Ed. 2019;6(1):47-57. Published online November 8, 2018; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.147

14,871 View
201 Download
3 Web of Science
5 Crossref

Abstract PDF

Purpose
An aim of this study is to analyze the citation impact of articles and reviews that were published in engineering, materials science, and medical journals in Korea over the 5-year period from 2012 to 2016 based on authors’ countries. These three subject areas were selected to provide insights regarding citation impact because they are better represented than other subjects among the 248 Korean journals indexed by Scopus.
Methods
We classified authors’ as Korean and foreign to assess and compare the citation impact of articles and reviews according to the authors’ countries and evaluated whether bibliometric indicators, such as the number of authors and the view count, were associated with a higher citation impact.
Results
We found that the citations count and publications in the top 10 citation percentile in these three subject areas were higher for reviews than for articles; further, the citation impact of articles and reviews by foreign authors was higher than that of articles and reviews by Korean authors. The number of authors had a weak relationship with citation impact based on the subject area, and the number of authors per review by foreign authors in materials science and medicine was negatively associated with citation impact. Moreover, the views count was found to be positively associated with the citation impact of publications in these three subject areas.
Conclusion
Considering these findings, future research should explore more bibliometric indicators, subject areas, and countries in order to develop practical applications. The results of this study provide insights and statistical evidence indicating that journal publishers and editors in Korea should attempt to attract more publications by foreign authors and promote their publications to increase their visibility and likelihood of being cited.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Limits of metrics-led internationalization: the case of Russian media studies
Nataliia Dmitrievna Trishchenko, Mikhail Igorevich Makeenko, Igor Vladimirovich Anisimov
Quality & Quantity.2025;[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
Relationship between publication indicators and citation impact indicators for publications in business, management, and accounting listed in Scopus from 2015 to 2019
Hyunju Jang
Science Editing.2021; 8(1): 18. CrossRef
Analysis of Korean journals rejected by Scopus since 2011
Hyunju Jang
Science Editing.2020; 7(1): 50. 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

Update: Bibliometric analysis of publications from North Korea indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection from 1978 to July 2018: Geum Hee Jeong, Sun Huh; Sci Ed. 2018;5(2):119-123. Published online August 20, 2018; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.135

12,830 View
196 Download
11 Web of Science
10 Crossref

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material

This study presents an update of a previous study, ‘Bibliometric analysis of publications from North Korea indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection from 1988 to 2016,’ which was published in Science Editing volume 4, issue 1. A re-analysis was performed because an incomplete search strategy was used in the original publication, and the present study analyzed the same bibliometric characteristics of publications from North Korea indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection from 1978 to 2018. The Web of Science Core Collection was searched by selecting ‘North Korea’ in the country field of the basic search results on July 31, 2018. A total of 533 articles were identified. There were no results from before 1978. China, Germany, and Australia were main countries of collaboration. Researchers from Kim Il Sung University produced the most articles. The main research fields were physics, mathematics, materials science, chemistry, and engineering. The funding agencies were mostly from China. The number of articles by North Korean authors only was 105, with the same main research fields. The results were almost the same as reported in the previous article, except for a much higher number of publications. The above results indicate that the North Korean government has asked researchers to publish their works in international journals; therefore, it has allowed them to access the internet. Based on the trends we identified, we anticipate that there will be a continuous increase in publications from North Korea in international journals indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Evaluating North Korean academic medicine’s contributions to the international medical literature: a bibliometric study
Andrew Holzman, Yongbin Kim, Jaewoo Park, Douglas Rappaport
Science Editing.2025; 12(2): 96. CrossRef
Scientific research trends of North Korea from 1976 to 2024: a Scopus-based bibliometric study
Dae Un Hong, Eunbin An, Junhyoung Kim, Jihoo Lim
Science Editing.2025; 12(2): 167. CrossRef
Mapping the development of North Korea's domestic nuclear research networks
Philip Baxter, Justin V. Hastings, Philseo Kim, Man‐Sung Yim
Review of Policy Research.2022; 39(2): 219. CrossRef
Military technology and the North Korean economy: evidence from time‐series data
Jang C. Jin, Go En Chang
Asian-Pacific Economic Literature.2022; 36(2): 106. CrossRef
Bibliometric Analysis Of Fisheries Policy Articles In The Journal Scopus Written By Authors From Affiliates Of The 10 Best Universities In Indonesia
Eki Darmawan, Ida Widianingsih, Rahman Mulyawan, Mudiyati Rahmatunnisa
IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science.2022; 1095(1): 012014. CrossRef
Bibliographic and content analysis of articles on education from Vietnam indexed in Scopus from 2009 to 2018
Cuong Huu Nguyen, Loc Thi My Nguyen, Trung Tran, Tien-Trung Nguyen
Science Editing.2020; 7(1): 45. CrossRef
A critical examination of international research conducted by North Korean authors: Increasing trends of collaborative research between China and North Korea
Eungi Kim, Eun Sil Kim
Scientometrics.2020; 124(1): 429. CrossRef
A bibliometric analysis of articles on innovation systems in Scopus journals written by authors from Indonesia, Singapore, and Malaysia
Prakoso Bhairawa Putera, Suryanto Suryanto, Sinta Ningrum, Ida Widianingsih
Science Editing.2020; 7(2): 177. CrossRef
Bibliographic and content analysis of physics papers from North Korea indexed in the Scopus from 2005 to 2018
Kihong Kim, Yeonok Chung
Science Editing.2019; 6(1): 35. CrossRef
Network analysis of scientific collaboration in North Korea
Hyung Wook Choi, Ye Jin Choi, Soon Kim
Science Editing.2019; 6(1): 25. CrossRef

Language policy and the disengagement of the international academic elite: John Harbord; Sci Ed. 2018;5(1):32-38. Published online February 19, 2018; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.115

16,288 View
231 Download
5 Web of Science
5 Crossref

Abstract PDF

This paper explores the phenomena of academic multiliteracy (the habit of writing academically in more than one language) and of L2 monoliteracy (that of only writing academically in a language that is not one’s own) and their impact on policy. Based on interviews and surveys conducted with 33 multiliterate and 15 L2 monoliterate scholars connected to one university in Central Europe between 2010 and 2014, I show how incentives to publish in English constructed by educational policies often push ambitious young researchers whose first language is not English away from engaging in academic and societal debates in their first language community. They may thus disengage from the national community, with negative consequences for the interaction between global and local that is essential for good governance. To overcome the difficulty young scholars encounter in writing in their native languages, they should be taught writing both in their native language and in English. Furthermore, university and state policies should reward scholars for writing not only for the international community but also for local society.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

EMI, power and expressivism
René Gabriëls, Robert Wilkinson
Journal of English-Medium Instruction.2024; 3(1): 1. CrossRef
Overcoming Cultural Barriers to Scholarly Communication in International Peer-Reviewed Journals
Lilia Raitskaya, Elena Tikhonova
Journal of Language and Education.2020; 6(2): 4. CrossRef
Seven Deadly Sins: Culture’s Effect on Scholarly Editing and Publishing
Lilia Raitskaya, Elena Tikhonova
Journal of Language and Education.2020; 6(3): 167. CrossRef
Pressure to Publish Internationally: Scholarly Writing Coming to the Fore
Lilia Raitskaya, Elena Tikhonova
Journal of Language and Education.2020; 6(1): 4. CrossRef
Journal metrics of Clinical and Molecular Hepatology based on the Web of Science Core Collection
Sun Huh
Clinical and Molecular Hepatology.2018; 24(2): 137. CrossRef

Bibliometric analysis of publications from North Korea indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection from 1988 to 2016: Geum Hee Jeong, Sun Huh; Sci Ed. 2017;4(1):24-29. Published online February 20, 2017; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.85; Correction in: Sci Ed 2017;4(2):111

18,201 View
283 Download
11 Web of Science
10 Crossref

Abstract PDF Supplementary Material

The aim of this study was to analyze the bibliometric characteristics of publications from North Korea indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection from 1988 to 2016. We hypothesized that the main research area would be the physical sciences, and that the number of articles would continually increase over time. The Web of Science Core Collection was searched using the terms “North Korea” OR “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea” OR “DPRK” in the address field of the basic search on February 2, 2017. The country of the co-authors, affiliations, journals, annual number of publications, and research fields were analyzed. Additionally, the articles by North Korean authors only were analyzed for the same parameters. A total of 318 articles from North Korea were found. The most frequent countries of collaboration were China, Germany, and Australia. Kim Il Sung University produced the most articles. The main research fields were physics, mathematics, and materials science. The categories of the journal titles corresponded to the research fields. The rapid increase in the number of articles in 2015 and 2016 was remarkable, although this increase started from a very small baseline number of publications. The results of the analysis of the 46 articles published by North Korean authors only were equivalent to the results for the 318 articles presented above. Our hypotheses were confirmed. The surge of articles in 2015 and 2016 may represent the recent efforts by the North Korean government to emphasize scientific research and development. It is anticipated that the productivity of North Korean researchers in terms of publications in international journals will increase dramatically based on the above trends, although the publication baseline is very low.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Evaluating North Korean academic medicine’s contributions to the international medical literature: a bibliometric study
Andrew Holzman, Yongbin Kim, Jaewoo Park, Douglas Rappaport
Science Editing.2025; 12(2): 96. CrossRef
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
Science Editing.2024; 11(1): 38. CrossRef
Analysis of Webometric Term in Scopus Database during 2000-2019
Yogesh Surwade, Hitendra J. Patil
SSRN Electronic Journal.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Mapping the development of North Korea's domestic nuclear research networks
Philip Baxter, Justin V. Hastings, Philseo Kim, Man‐Sung Yim
Review of Policy Research.2022; 39(2): 219. CrossRef
Military technology and the North Korean economy: evidence from time‐series data
Jang C. Jin, Go En Chang
Asian-Pacific Economic Literature.2022; 36(2): 106. CrossRef
Structural characteristics of institutional collaboration in North Korea analyzed through domestic publications
Han Woo Park, Jungwon Yoon
Scientometrics.2019; 119(2): 771. CrossRef
Network analysis of scientific collaboration in North Korea
Hyung Wook Choi, Ye Jin Choi, Soon Kim
Science Editing.2019; 6(1): 25. CrossRef
Bibliographic and content analysis of physics papers from North Korea indexed in the Scopus from 2005 to 2018
Kihong Kim, Yeonok Chung
Science Editing.2019; 6(1): 35. CrossRef
Update: Bibliometric analysis of publications from North Korea indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection from 1978 to July 2018
Geum Hee Jeong, Sun Huh
Science Editing.2018; 5(2): 119. CrossRef
Bibliometric and content analysis of medical articles in the PubMed database published by North Korean authors from 1997 to July 2017
Geum Hee Jeong, Sun Huh
Science Editing.2017; 4(2): 70. CrossRef

Rapid growth of international collaboration from articles indexed in Scopus database by researchers in Korea from 2006 to 2015: Yeonok Chung, Kihong Kim; Sci Ed. 2017;4(1):18-23. Published online February 20, 2017; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.84

11,659 View
157 Download
1 Web of Science
1 Crossref

Abstract PDF

It aimed at analyzing the trends of international collaboration from articles indexed in Scopus by researchers in Korea from 2006 to 2015. The number of articles coauthored by researchers in Korea and those in selected foreign countries was obtained from document searches of the Scopus database. The growth of research collaboration in various academic disciplines was also studied. There were 22 countries which produced over 2,000 papers in collaboration with researchers in Korea during the ten-year period between 2006 and 2015. The average of the average annual growth rate taken over these 22 countries was 12.9%. In 9 additional Asian, Latin American, and African countries, more rapid growth of international research collaboration was clearly seen. Though research collaboration is most active in the field of physics and astronomy with most countries, it was found that the growth of collaboration in medicine was most remarkable in Southeast Asian countries. It may be originated from the intimate relationship between Korea and Southeast Asia and the leadership of Korean physicians in that region.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Reflections on the Basic Manuscript Editors’ Training 2017
Hakbong Lee
Science Editing.2017; 4(2): 93. CrossRef

Training Material

Applying Open Researchers and Contributors ID in scholarly journals: Jeonghee Im; Sci Ed. 2015;2(1):28-31. Published online February 28, 2015; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.33

22,127 View
126 Download
16 Web of Science
16 Crossref

Abstract PDF

Open Researchers and Contributors ID (ORCID) launched its registry services in October 2012. Consequently, adding personal information to the ORCID registry became routine work for researchers. To add ORCID to an online article, the tag < contrib-id contrib-id-type = “orcid” > needs to be included in the Journal Article Tag Suite extensible markup language file, if such a file has been produced by the publisher. Subsequently, all co-authors’ ORCID can be easily and conveniently collected and then integrated into the manuscript management system. In the current age of information and the Internet, journals need to keep pace with the surge of new standards and technologies. Editors should be able to accept and apply these new systems rapidly.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Position of Ultrasonography in the scholarly journal network based on bibliometrics and developmental strategies for it to become a top-tier journal
Sun Huh
Ultrasonography.2020; 39(3): 238. CrossRef
Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions will be accepted for inclusion in Scopus
Sun Huh
Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions.2019; 16: 2. CrossRef
Endocrinology and Metabolism Has Been Indexed in MEDLINE: A Major Achievement
Won-Young Lee
Endocrinology and Metabolism.2019; 34(2): 138. CrossRef
Journal metrics of Clinical and Molecular Hepatology based on the Web of Science Core Collection
Sun Huh
Clinical and Molecular Hepatology.2018; 24(2): 137. CrossRef
How much progress has Blood Research made since the change of the journal title in 2013
Sun Huh
Blood Research.2018; 53(2): 95. CrossRef
Recent advances of medical journals in Korea and and further development strategies: Is it possible for them to publish Nobel Prize-winning research?
Sun Huh
Journal of the Korean Medical Association.2018; 61(9): 524. CrossRef
Endocrinology and Metabolism Is Indexed in the Emerging Sources Citation Index
Won-Young Lee
Endocrinology and Metabolism.2017; 32(3): 350. CrossRef
How to PrepareEndocrinology and Metabolismfor Reapplication to MEDLINE
Sun Huh
Endocrinology and Metabolism.2017; 32(1): 58. CrossRef
Promotion ofNeurointerventionto International Journal Based on Journal Metrics
Sun Huh
Neurointervention.2016; 11(1): 5. CrossRef
Journal of Gastric Cancer's Promotion to International Journal from the Perspective of Biliometric Analysis
Sun Huh
Journal of Gastric Cancer.2016; 16(1): 8. CrossRef
Status of digital standards in Korean medical journals in 2016
Geum Hee Jeong, Sun Huh
Science Editing.2016; 3(2): 100. CrossRef
Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery's Evolution into an International Journal Based on Journal Metrics
Sun Huh
Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery.2016; 8(2): 127. CrossRef
How much progress has been made in journal metrics two years after the citation analysis of theKorean Journal of Urology?
Sun Huh
Korean Journal of Urology.2015; 56(4): 276. CrossRef
Evidence of the Internationalization ofClinical EndoscopyBased on Journal Metrics
Sun Huh
Clinical Endoscopy.2015; 48(4): 317. CrossRef
The Elevation ofAnnals of Rehabilitation Medicineto the Status of an International Journal After Adopting an English-Only Policy
Sun Huh
Annals of Rehabilitation Medicine.2015; 39(5): 661. CrossRef
How much is Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions promoted based on journal metrics?
Sun Huh
Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions.2015; 12: 57. CrossRef

Case Study

Scientific and technological journals in Vietnam: the current state and direction of development: Banh Tien Long, Nguyen Duc Toan; Sci Ed. 2015;2(1):18-21. Published online February 28, 2015; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.31

21,555 View
192 Download
6 Web of Science
4 Crossref

Abstract PDF

Vietnam is on its way to becoming a more developed country and more integrated into the global community. One of the most important key factors for development is science and technology. Scientific publications bring the most up-to-date information to scientists, researchers, and society. The quality of Vietnam’s scientific journals should be increased to international level. Also, the number of high quality articles published in international journals from Vietnam is limited compared to the number of researchers in Vietnam. There is still no Vietnamese journal indexed in Web of Science up to January 2015; while, three journals has been indexed in Scopus. This article discusses the current scenario of scientific and technological journals in Vietnam and the trend of development to international level.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Mathematical Modeling Research Output Impacting New Technological Development: An Axiomatization to Build Novelty
Mohd Razip Bajuri, Zailan Siri, Mohd Nor Syahrir Abdullah
Axioms.2022; 11(6): 264. CrossRef
The harsh world of publishing in emerging regions and implications for editors and publishers: The case of Vietnam
Quan‐Hoang Vuong
Learned Publishing.2019; 32(4): 314. CrossRef
Nemo Solus Satis Sapit: Trends of Research Collaborations in the Vietnamese Social Sciences, Observing 2008–2017 Scopus Data
Quan-Hoang Vuong, Tung Manh Ho, Thu-Trang Vuong, Ha Viet Nguyen, Nancy Napier, Hiep-Hung Pham
Publications.2017; 5(4): 24. CrossRef
Academic journals and cultural diversity
Kihong Kim
Science Editing.2015; 2(1): 1. CrossRef

Original Article

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

23,980 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