Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Science Editing : Science Editing

OPEN ACCESS
SEARCH
Search

Search

Page Path
HOME > Search
8 "Writing"
Filter
Filter
Article category
Keywords
Publication year
Authors
Funded articles
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
  • 3,677 View
  • 223 Download
AbstractAbstract 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
Comparing the accuracy and effectiveness of Wordvice AI Proofreader to two automated editing tools and human editors
Kevin Heintz, Younghoon Roh, Jonghwan Lee
Sci Ed. 2022;9(1):37-45.   Published online February 20, 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.261
  • 5,328 View
  • 337 Download
  • 1 Crossref
AbstractAbstract PDF
Purpose: Wordvice AI Proofreader is a recently developed web-based artificial intelligence-driven text processor that provides real-time automated proofreading and editing of user-input text. It aims to compare its accuracy and effectiveness to expert proofreading by human editors and two other popular proofreading applications—automated writing analysis tools of Google Docs, and Microsoft Word. Because this tool was primarily designed for use by academic authors to proofread their manuscript drafts, the comparison of this tool’s efficacy to other tools was intended to establish the usefulness of this particular field for these authors.
Methods
We performed a comparative analysis of proofreading completed by the Wordvice AI Proofreader, by experienced human academic editors, and by two other popular proofreading applications. The number of errors accurately reported and the overall usefulness of the vocabulary suggestions was measured using a General Language Evaluation Understanding metric and open dataset comparisons.
Results
In the majority of texts analyzed, the Wordvice AI Proofreader achieved performance levels at or near that of the human editors, identifying similar errors and offering comparable suggestions in the majority of sample passages. The Wordvice AI Proofreader also had higher performance and greater consistency than that of the other two proofreading applications evaluated.
Conclusion
We found that the overall functionality of the Wordvice artificial intelligence proofreading tool is comparable to that of a human proofreader and equal or superior to that of two other programs with built-in automated writing evaluation proofreaders used by tens of millions of users: Google Docs and Microsoft Word.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • Navigating the impact: a study of editors’ and proofreaders’ perceptions of AI tools in editing and proofreading
    Islam Al Sawi, Ahmed Alaa
    Discover Artificial Intelligence.2024;[Epub]     CrossRef
The opinions of Indian dental faculty members on harmonizing manuscript preparation and the submission guidelines of journals
Gadde Praveen, Harsha GVD, Swati G Naidu, Dharani ASD
Sci Ed. 2022;9(1):15-21.   Published online February 20, 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.258
  • 5,694 View
  • 268 Download
  • 2 Web of Science
  • 2 Crossref
AbstractAbstract PDFSupplementary Material
Purpose: Authors of scholarly writing are underrepresented in discussions about improving the academic publishing system. The objective of this study was to assess the possibility of harmonizing manuscript preparation and the submission guidelines of journals by assessing the opinions of dental faculty members who worked in the state of Andhra Pradesh, India.
Methods
A cross-sectional survey of 1,286 participants from 16 dental schools in Andhra Pradesh was conducted from March 15, 2021 to April 15, 2021. The questionnaire addressed the participants’ demographic details and perspectives on the guidelines for manuscript preparation and the need to harmonize those guidelines with the publication process. The online questionnaire was generated using Google Forms and consisted of six dichotomous, one multiple-choice, and seven Likert scale items. Descriptive statistics were obtained.
Results
Of the 894 (69.5%) dental faculty members who responded, 448 (50.1%) were not aware of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors’ guidelines for manuscript preparation and submission. During the manuscript revision process, 792 (95.5%) had experienced difficulty with the variation in author guidelines for each journal, especially the guidelines for formatting tables, reference style, and citation of references in-text. The idea of a standardized template for manuscript preparation and submission was supported by 800 respondents (86.7%).
Conclusion
Dental faculty members in India experienced difficulty in manuscript preparation for medical journals due to the differing editorial policies among journals. Therefore, a standardized template providing uniformity in style and format is needed.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • Research publications of Australia’s natural history museums, 1981–2020: Enduring relevance in a changing world
    Tayla A. Green, Pat A. Hutchings, Fiona R. Scarff, James R. Tweedley, Michael C. Calver, Claudia Noemi González Brambila
    PLOS ONE.2023; 18(6): e0287659.     CrossRef
  • Why consistent, clear, and uniform instructions for authors are required
    Jean Iwaz
    Science Editing.2022; 9(2): 142.     CrossRef
Reviews
Artificial intelligence-assisted tools for redefining the communication landscape of the scholarly world
Habeeb Ibrahim Abdul Razack, Sam T. Mathew, Fathinul Fikri Ahmad Saad, Saleh A. Alqahtani
Sci Ed. 2021;8(2):134-144.   Published online July 27, 2021
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.244
  • 19,014 View
  • 684 Download
  • 12 Web of Science
  • 14 Crossref
AbstractAbstract PDF
The flood of research output and increasing demands for peer reviewers have necessitated the intervention of artificial intelligence (AI) in scholarly publishing. Although human input is seen as essential for writing publications, the contribution of AI slowly and steadily moves ahead. AI may redefine the role of science communication experts in the future and transform the scholarly publishing industry into a technology-driven one. It can prospectively improve the quality of publishable content and identify errors in published content. In this article, we review various AI and other associated tools currently in use or development for a range of publishing obligations and functions that have brought about or can soon leverage much-demanded advances in scholarly communications. Several AI-assisted tools, with diverse scope and scale, have emerged in the scholarly market. AI algorithms develop summaries of scientific publications and convert them into plain-language texts, press statements, and news stories. Retrieval of accurate and sufficient information is prominent in evidence-based science publications. Semantic tools may empower transparent and proficient data extraction tactics. From detecting simple plagiarism errors to predicting the projected citation impact of an unpublished article, AI’s role in scholarly publishing is expected to be multidimensional. AI, natural language processing, and machine learning in scholarly publishing have arrived for writers, editors, authors, and publishers. They should leverage these technologies to enable the fast and accurate dissemination of scientific information to contribute to the betterment of humankind.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • Slow Writing with ChatGPT: Turning the Hype into a Right Way Forward
    Chitnarong Sirisathitkul
    Postdigital Science and Education.2024; 6(2): 431.     CrossRef
  • Navigating the impact: a study of editors’ and proofreaders’ perceptions of AI tools in editing and proofreading
    Islam Al Sawi, Ahmed Alaa
    Discover Artificial Intelligence.2024;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Beyond Plagiarism: ChatGPT as the Vanguard of Technological Revolution in Research and Citation
    Hanni B. Flaherty, Jackson Yurch
    Research on Social Work Practice.2024;[Epub]     CrossRef
  • Capítulo 3. Inteligencia Artificial en la comunicación científica
    Sofía E. Calle-Pesántez, José Moisés Pallo-Chiguano
    Espejo de Monografías de Comunicación Social.2024; (23): 59.     CrossRef
  • MAATrica: a Measure for Assessing Consistency and Methods in Medicinal and Nutraceutical Chemistry Papers
    Giulia Panzarella, Alessandro Gallo, Sandra Coecke, Maddalena Querci, Francesco Ortuso, Martin Hofmann-Apitius, Pierangelo Veltri, Jürgen Bajorath, Stefano Alcaro
    European Journal of Medicinal Chemistry.2024; : 116522.     CrossRef
  • Recent Issues in Medical Journal Publishing and Editing Policies: Adoption of Artificial Intelligence, Preprints, Open Peer Review, Model Text Recycling Policies, Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing 4th Version, and Country Names in Titles
    Sun Huh
    Neurointervention.2023; 18(1): 2.     CrossRef
  • Artificial intelligence-assisted medical writing: With greater power comes greater responsibility
    Rhythm Bains
    Asian Journal of Oral Health and Allied Sciences.2023; 13: 2.     CrossRef
  • Emergence of the metaverse and ChatGPT in journal publishing after the COVID-19 pandemic
    Sun Huh
    Science Editing.2023; 10(1): 1.     CrossRef
  • Author-Profile-Based Journal Recommendation for a Candidate Article: Using Hybrid Semantic Similarity and Trend Analysis
    Mehmet Yașar Bayraktar, Mehmet Kaya
    IEEE Access.2023; 11: 45826.     CrossRef
  • Utilization of artificial intelligence technology in an academic writing class: How do Indonesian students perceive?
    Santi Pratiwi Tri Utami, Andayani Andayani, Retno Winarni, Sumarwati Sumarwati
    Contemporary Educational Technology.2023; 15(4): ep450.     CrossRef
  • The impact of generative AI tools on researchers and research: Implications for academia in higher education
    Abdulrahman M. Al-Zahrani
    Innovations in Education and Teaching International.2023; : 1.     CrossRef
  • Editorial policies on the use of generative artificial intelligence in article writing and peer-review in the Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions
    Sun Huh
    Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions.2023; 20: 40.     CrossRef
  • Current Status of Neurointervention, the Official Journal of the Korean Society of Interventional Neuroradiology
    Dae Chul Suh, Sun Huh
    Neurointervention.2022; 17(2): 67.     CrossRef
  • Profiles of Technology Use and Plagiarism in High School Education
    Juan Carlos Torres-Diaz, Pablo Vicente Torres Carrión, Isidro Marín Gutierrez
    SSRN Electronic Journal .2021;[Epub]     CrossRef
Adaptation of Journal Article Tag Suite XML for Japanese humanities papers
Hidehiko Nakanishi, Tsuyoshi Yamamoto, Nao Hattori, Satoshi Taga
Sci Ed. 2018;5(2):92-99.   Published online August 20, 2018
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.136
  • 13,252 View
  • 197 Download
  • 1 Web of Science
  • 1 Crossref
AbstractAbstract PDF
Out of East Asian languages which do not use the Latin alphabet, Japanese is a very complicated writing system that uses “kanji,” which are ideograms, and “kana,” which are phonetic characters. Most of the Japanese papers published so far using Journal Article Tag Suite (JATS) are science, technology, and medicine fields adapting horizontal writing systems, which are structurally consistent with English papers. Most of them only replace Latin letters with Japanese characters. In this presentation, we suggested method of presenting vertically oriented Japanese humanities articles in JATS XML. For vertical description of Chinese numeric, we would like to propose the introduction of an element which specifies description direction. Alternatively, could be used as a hidden command when creating a document. We propose the following notation in the part of the number that can be converted: 六五. Chinese numeric 六五 is a Arabic numeric 65. With this, it is shown that 六五 of Chinese numerals can be converted to 65 in Arabic numerals. For vertical text description with JATS, we would like to suggest adding @ writing-mode as an attribute to
:
. Furthermore, note and references should be differentiated for example, between a and a in the future. As Kanji are ideograms, there are variations that cannot be expressed with UTF-8. If these difficult Kanji are included in the JATS text, it will be necessary to decide on their description method. For the propagation of use of JATS XML for non-Latin characters articles, the structure of the document for example, vertical description, and special presentation should be considered more widely.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • 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
Original Articles
Comparison of the patterns of duplicate articles between KoreaMed and PubMed journals published from 2004 to 2009 according to the categories of duplicate publications
Soo Young Kim, Chong Woo Bae, Hye-Min Cho, Sun Huh
Sci Ed. 2018;5(1):44-48.   Published online February 19, 2018
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.117
  • 9,536 View
  • 188 Download
  • 2 Web of Science
  • 3 Crossref
AbstractAbstract PDF
This study compared the patterns of duplicate articles between KoreaMed and PubMed journals based on a division of duplicate publications into the 4 categories of ‘copy,’ ‘salami’ (fragmentation), ‘imalas’ (disaggregation), and ‘others,’ as well as in terms of the 11 subcategories suggested by Bae et al., which further elaborate on those 4 main categories. We hypothesized that these 2 groups of articles would show different patterns of duplication. Duplicate publications were identified in a random sample of 5% of the articles from the KoreaMed database published between 2004 and 2009, while all articles with the publication type of ‘duplicate publication’ were selected from PubMed over the same period. The selected articles were classified based on the 4 categories and 11 subcategories of duplicate publications, and the data from the 2 groups were compared. A total of 108 articles were selected from KoreaMed and 45 articles were obtained from PubMed. The category of copy was the most common in both databases. The next most frequent pattern was imalas (disaggregation). Pattern of duplicate publication between 2 databases showed no correlation (P = 0.8754). Although the 108 articles from KoreaMed were allocated to all 11 Bae et al.’s subcategories, those from PubMed were allocated to only 8. The above results showed that the articles in the 2 databases had different patterns of duplication, as defined in terms of the 11 subcategories. The use of these 11 subcategories will help journal editors to develop an appropriate framework for considering a variety of duplication types.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • Recent Issues in Medical Journal Publishing and Editing Policies: Adoption of Artificial Intelligence, Preprints, Open Peer Review, Model Text Recycling Policies, Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing 4th Version, and Country Names in Titles
    Sun Huh
    Neurointervention.2023; 18(1): 2.     CrossRef
  • Analysis of duplicated publications in Russian journals
    Yury V. Chekhovich, Andrey V. Khazov
    Journal of Informetrics.2022; 16(1): 101246.     CrossRef
  • How many retracted articles indexed in KoreaMed were cited 1 year after retraction notification
    Soo Young Kim, Hyun Jung Yi, Hye-Min Cho, Sun Huh
    Science Editing.2019; 6(2): 122.     CrossRef
Status of digital standards in Korean medical journals in 2016
Geum Hee Jeong, Sun Huh
Sci Ed. 2016;3(2):100-104.   Published online August 20, 2016
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.73
  • 10,630 View
  • 154 Download
  • 13 Web of Science
  • 14 Crossref
AbstractAbstract PDFSupplementary Material
This study aimed to characterize the current status of a variety of digital standards in medical journals published in Korea in 2016. A total of 256 journals listed as member journals of the Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors were searched to evaluate the following items: an independent journal homepage domain; an e-submission system; the use of digital object identifiers (DOIs), CrossMark, and FundRef; the availability of text and data mining; the presence of Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) information, an open access declaration, and the language of the journal. The search was carried out from July 29 to 30, 2016. Independent journal homepage domains were found for 190 of the 256 journals (74.1%). Of the journals, 216 were equipped with an e-submission system (84.4%), and 218 journals used DOIs (85.2%). CrossMark and FundRef were used in 105 journals (41.0%), text and data mining were available for 31 journals (11.1%), ORCID identifiers were present in 24 journals (9.4%), and an open access declaration according to a Creative Commons license was present for 199 journals (77.8%). The number of English-language journals was 130 (50.8%). Open access journals and English-language journals were found to have implemented more digital standards than non-open access journals and Korean-language journals respectively. The above results demonstrate that digital standards have been rapidly implemented by a considerable number of medical journals in Korea. In order to facilitate the more active promotion of journals to the international level, more journals should utilize these standards. The use of full-text JATS (journal article tag suite) XML is recommended for the easy adoption of DOIs, CrossMark, FundRef, and ORCID.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  
  • Medical and health sciences academics’ behaviours and attitudes towards open access publishing in scholarly journals: a perspective from South Korea
    Kyoung Hee Joung, Jennifer Rowley, Laura Sbaffi
    Information Development.2019; 35(2): 191.     CrossRef
  • Is it possible to foster first-rate publishers through a journal publishing cooperative in Korea?
    Sun Huh
    Archives of Plastic Surgery.2019; 46(01): 3.     CrossRef
  • Bronze, free, or fourrée: an open access commentary
    Eamon Costello
    Science Editing.2019; 6(1): 69.     CrossRef
  • Status of digital standards, licensing types, and archiving policies in Asian open access journals registered in Directory of Open Access Journals
    Soon Kim, Hyungwook Choi
    Science Editing.2019; 6(1): 41.     CrossRef
  • How many retracted articles indexed in KoreaMed were cited 1 year after retraction notification
    Soo Young Kim, Hyun Jung Yi, Hye-Min Cho, Sun Huh
    Science Editing.2019; 6(2): 122.     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
  • 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
  • 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
  • Is Diabetes & Metabolism Journal Eligible to Be Indexed in MEDLINE?
    Sun Huh
    Diabetes & Metabolism Journal.2018; 42(6): 472.     CrossRef
  • The great rise ofIntestinal Researchas an international journal 3 years after its language change to English as evidenced by journal metrics
    Geum Hee Jeong, Sun Huh
    Intestinal Research.2017; 15(1): 1.     CrossRef
  • The rapid internationalization of Annals of Pediatric Endocrinology & Metabolism as evidenced by journal metrics
    Sun Huh
    Annals of Pediatric Endocrinology & Metabolism.2017; 22(2): 77.     CrossRef
  • Clinical and Experimental Vaccine Research's promotion to internationally competitive journal evidenced by journal metrics
    Sun Huh
    Clinical and Experimental Vaccine Research.2017; 6(2): 67.     CrossRef
  • How to successfully list a journal in the Social Science Citation Index or Science Citation Index Expanded
    Sun Huh
    Korean Journal of Medical Education.2017; 29(4): 221.     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
Current status of Science Citation Index Expanded listing of Korean medical journals and effect of PubMed electronic publication ahead of print to their impact factors
Jae Jun Shim, Byung-Ho Kim
Sci Ed. 2016;3(2):94-99.   Published online August 20, 2016
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.72
  • 16,037 View
  • 150 Download
AbstractAbstract PDF
This year marked the twentieth anniversary of the Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors (KAMJE). The number of member journals has increased from 105 to 257 since its inception in 1996. In the same period, the number of journals listed in the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) has increased from zero to 35. The average journal impact factor (JIF) that was initially 0.13 has now increased by more than tenfold on average to 1.45 as of 2014. Many KAMJE journals that are not indexed in the SCIE are putting their best effort towards eventual inclusion. Following listing with SCIE, however, editors have turned their attention towards the JIF and have shown interest in early online publication as a means of improving the JIF. The current status of PubMed electronic publication ahead of print (EAP) was surveyed among KAMJE journals that are indexed in the SCIE, and the impact of this EAP on the improvement of the JIF was investigated. Based on the survey, more than half of the members have started or are planning on implementing EAP. However, these efforts were found to be still in their infancy, and they have been insufficient to serve as a basis for scientific analysis. Since the sample size is too small and the implementation period too short to statistically analyze the effects of early publication on the JIF, a case-by-case approach was taken. Based on case studies, it is difficult to draw conclusions yet about whether online early publication enhances the JIF.

Science Editing : Science Editing