Science Editing最新文献_第6页

Ukrainian scientific TV programs and YouTube channels as a distraction from war news on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine: a survey-based observational study and a content analysis 乌克兰科学电视节目和YouTube频道分散了人们对俄罗斯入侵乌克兰战争新闻的注意力：一项基于调查的观察研究和内容分析

IF 1.5

Science Editing Pub Date : 2022-08-19 DOI: 10.6087/kcse.278

Roksolana Kravchenko

{"title":"Ukrainian scientific TV programs and YouTube channels as a distraction from war news on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine: a survey-based observational study and a content analysis","authors":"Roksolana Kravchenko","doi":"10.6087/kcse.278","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.278","url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: This study examined whether popular science journalism can be a distraction from war news, as the life of all citizens in Ukraine has changed significantly since the beginning of the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022.Methods: This article presents an audience survey on whether they viewed science content as a distraction from war news. In addition, an analysis of 10 Ukrainian YouTube channels was conducted. All videos that were published after February 24, 2022, the start date of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, were processed.Results: Out of 460 audience members of TV programs and YouTube channels, 64.8% of respondents considered watching popular science or entertainment programs as a distraction from the war. An analysis of the content of popular science YouTube channels during the first 2 months of the war showed that every active channel was reformatted according to the realities of wartime. In addition, the audience survey demonstrated that even during the war, this type of content has remained relevant.Conclusion: The Ukrainian audience needed scientific content as a distraction from the war. The majority of respondents, regardless of gender, needed to divert their attention from military operations. Ukrainian science journalists also joined the information war against the foreign invasion.","PeriodicalId":43802,"journal":{"name":"Science Editing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49157729","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

The evolution, benefits, and challenges of preprints and their interaction with journals 预印本的发展、好处和挑战及其与期刊的互动

IF 1.5

Science Editing Pub Date : 2022-02-20 DOI: 10.6087/kcse.269

P. Smart

{"title":"The evolution, benefits, and challenges of preprints and their interaction with journals","authors":"P. Smart","doi":"10.6087/kcse.269","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.269","url":null,"abstract":"This article presents the growth and development of preprints to help authors, editors, and publishers understand and adopt appropriate strategies for incorporating preprints within their scholarly communication strategies. The article considers: preprint history and evolution, integration of preprints and journals, and the benefits and disadvantages, and challenges that preprints offer. The article discusses the two largest and most established preprint servers, arXiv.org (established in 1991) and SSRN (1994), the OSF (Open Science Foundation) initiative that supported preprint growth (2010), bioRxiv (2013), and medRxiv (2019). It then discusses six different levels of acceptance of preprints within journals: uneasy relationship, acceptance of preprint articles, encouraging authors to preprint their articles, active participation with preprints, submerger by reviewing preprints, and finally merger and overlay models. It is notable that most journals now accept submissions that have been posted as preprints. The benefits of preprints include fast circulation, priority publication, increased visibility, community feedback, and contribution to open science. Disadvantages include information overload, inadequate quality assurance, citation dilution, information manipulation and inflation of results. As preprints become mainstream it is likely that they will benefit authors but disadvantage publishers and journals. Authors are encouraged to preprint their own articles but to be cautious about using preprints as the basis for their own research. Editors are encouraged to develop preprint policies and be aware that double-blind review is not possible with preprinting of articles and that allowing citations to preprints is to be encouraged. In conclusion, journal-related stakeholders should consider preprints as an unavoidable development, taking into consideration both the benefits and disadvantages.","PeriodicalId":43802,"journal":{"name":"Science Editing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42906266","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 8

Role of academic publishers in 10 years: a perspective from the Chairman of Elsevier 从爱思唯尔董事长的视角看学术出版商在10年中的作用

IF 1.5

Science Editing Pub Date : 2022-02-20 DOI: 10.6087/kcse.262

Youngsuk Chi

引用次数: 0

Local editors have no time to lose for building their journals’ reputations 本地编辑们没有时间浪费在建立期刊声誉上

IF 1.5

Science Editing Pub Date : 2022-02-20 DOI: 10.6087/kcse.268

Byung-Mo Oh

引用次数: 0

Types, limitations, and possible alternatives of peer review based on the literature and surgeons’ opinions via Twitter: a narrative review 基于文献和外科医生通过推特发表的意见的同行评审的类型、局限性和可能的替代方案：叙述性综述

IF 1.5

Science Editing Pub Date : 2022-02-20 DOI: 10.6087/kcse.257

S. Emile, H. Hamid, S. Atıcı, Doga Nur Kosker, Mario Virgilio Papa, H. Elfeki, Chee Yang Tan, A. El‐Hussuna, S. Wexner

{"title":"Types, limitations, and possible alternatives of peer review based on the literature and surgeons’ opinions via Twitter: a narrative review","authors":"S. Emile, H. Hamid, S. Atıcı, Doga Nur Kosker, Mario Virgilio Papa, H. Elfeki, Chee Yang Tan, A. El‐Hussuna, S. Wexner","doi":"10.6087/kcse.257","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.257","url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":43802,"journal":{"name":"Science Editing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47328022","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

Reflections on 4 years in the role of a Crossref ambassador in Korea 在韩国担任十字架大使4年的感想

IF 1.5

Science Editing Pub Date : 2022-02-20 DOI: 10.6087/kcse.266

J. Chang

引用次数: 0

Development of a decision-support tool to quantify authorship contributions in clinical trial publications 开发决策支持工具，量化临床试验出版物的作者贡献

IF 1.5

Science Editing Pub Date : 2022-02-20 DOI: 10.6087/kcse.259

Sam T. Mathew, H. I. A. Razack, Prasanth Viswanathan

{"title":"Development of a decision-support tool to quantify authorship contributions in clinical trial publications","authors":"Sam T. Mathew, H. I. A. Razack, Prasanth Viswanathan","doi":"10.6087/kcse.259","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.259","url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: This study aimed to develop a decision-support tool to quantitatively determine authorship in clinical trial publications.Methods: The tool was developed in three phases: consolidation of authorship recommendations from the Good Publication Practice (GPP) and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) guidelines, identifying and scoring attributes using a 5-point Likert scale or a dichotomous scale, and soliciting feedback from editors and researchers.Results: The authorship criteria stipulated by the ICMJE and GPP recommendations were categorized into 2 Modules. Criterion 1 and the related GPP recommendations formed Module 1 (sub-criteria: contribution to design, data generation, and interpretation), while Module 2 was based on criteria 2 to 4 and the related GPP recommendations (sub-criteria: contribution to manuscript preparation and approval). The two modules with relevant sub-criteria were then differentiated into attributes (n = 17 in Module 1, n = 12 in Module 2). An individual contributor can be scored for each sub-criterion by summing the related attribute values; the sum of sub-criteria scores constituted the module score (Module 1 score: 70 [contribution to conception or design of the study, 20; data acquisition, 7; data analysis, 27; interpretation of data, 16]; Module 2 score: 50 [content development, 27; content review, 18; accountability, 5]). The concept was integrated into Microsoft Excel with adequate formulae and macros. A threshold of 50% for each sub-criterion and each module, with an overall score of 65%, is predefined as qualifying for authorship.Conclusion: This authorship decision-support tool would be helpful for clinical trial sponsors to assess and provide authorship to deserving contributors.","PeriodicalId":43802,"journal":{"name":"Science Editing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41941911","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

Comparing the accuracy and effectiveness of Wordvice AI Proofreader to two automated editing tools and human editors Wordvice AI校对器与两种自动化编辑工具和人工编辑器的准确性和有效性比较

IF 1.5

Science Editing Pub Date : 2022-02-20 DOI: 10.6087/kcse.261

Kevin Heintz, Young-Wan Roh, Jonghwan Lee

{"title":"Comparing the accuracy and effectiveness of Wordvice AI Proofreader to two automated editing tools and human editors","authors":"Kevin Heintz, Young-Wan Roh, Jonghwan Lee","doi":"10.6087/kcse.261","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.261","url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":43802,"journal":{"name":"Science Editing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41499426","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

Role of Crossref in journal publishing over the next decade 交叉参考在未来十年期刊出版中的作用

IF 1.5

Science Editing Pub Date : 2022-02-20 DOI: 10.6087/kcse.263

E. Pentz

引用次数: 2

Changes in article share and growth by publisher and access type in Journal Citation Reports 2016, 2018, and 2020 2016、2018和2020年期刊引文报告中按出版商和访问类型划分的文章份额和增长的变化

IF 1.5

Science Editing Pub Date : 2022-02-20 DOI: 10.6087/kcse.260

Sang-Jun Kim, K. Park

{"title":"Changes in article share and growth by publisher and access type in Journal Citation Reports 2016, 2018, and 2020","authors":"Sang-Jun Kim, K. Park","doi":"10.6087/kcse.260","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.260","url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: This study explored changes in the journal publishing market by publisher and access type using the major journals that publish about 95% of Journal Citation Reports (JCR) articles.Methods: From JCR 2016, 2018, and 2020, a unique journal list by publisher was created in Excel and used to analyze the compound annual growth rate by pivot tables. In total, 10,953 major JCR journals were analyzed, focusing on publisher type, open access (OA) status, and mega journals (publishing over 1,000 articles per year).Results: Among the 19 publishers that published over 10,000 articles per year, in JCR 2020, six large publishers published 59.6% of the articles and 13 publishers 22.5%. The other publishers published 17.9%. Large and OA publishers increased their article share through leading mega journals, but the remaining publishers showed the opposite tendency. In JCR 2020, mega journals had a 26.5% article share and an excellent distribution in terms of the Journal Impact Factor quartile. Despite the high growth (22.6%) and share (26.0%) of OA articles, the natural growth of non-OA articles (7.3%) and total articles (10.7%) caused a rise in journal subscription fees. Articles, citations, the impact factor, and the immediacy index all increased gradually, and the compound annual growth rate of the average immediacy index was almost double than that of the average impact factor in JCR 2020.Conclusion: The influence of OA publishers has grown under the dominance of large publishers, and mega journals may substantially change the journal market. Journal stakeholders should pay attention to these changes.","PeriodicalId":43802,"journal":{"name":"Science Editing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45733326","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2