Editors' report for 2014, <scp>N</scp>ovember 2014
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
During 2014 BJCP published 87 reviews (seven of which were meta-analyses and 17 systematic reviews, 15 were commissioned and 20 uncommissioned, 11 were themed), one short communication, one viewpoint, one set of abstracts, one historical perspective, 132 research articles, five papers in the Methods in Pharmacology series, two book reviews, five commentaries, four editorials and 34 letters. There were two themed issues: Addiction in the February issue (77:2), and Pharmacogenomics and Pharmacoepigenetics in the April issue (77:4) We received 553 submissions from 1 January 2014 to 31 October 2014 (exactly the same number, 553, for that time frame in 2013), of which 393 were original papers. Of the original articles, 15% have been accepted, with the remainder rejected, pending a decision or awaiting a revision. We have seen a stable rate of submissions of reviews and meta-analyses, with 75 to date, as compared with 81 in 2013. Overall submissions for the period came from 57 countries (63 countries in 2013 and 52 in 2012): United Kingdom (79, 14% of total), USA (41, 7%), China (61, 11%), France (38, 6.8%), the Netherlands (33, 5.9%), Australia (30, 5.4%), Italy (30, 5.4%), India (24, 4.3%), Japan (18, 3.2%), Germany (17, 3%), Spain (17, 3%), Canada (15, 2.7%), Korea (14, 2.5%), Denmark (13, 2.3%), Switzerland (12, 2.1%), Sweden (9, 1.6%) and 41 other countries (<10 submissions each). Papers were submitted and handled electronically via the ScholarOne website. These results are encouraging, especially in the categories ‘from submission to final acceptance’, which has decreased by 6 days and ‘from receipt at the Publishers to issue publication’, which has decreased by 15 days. This reflects the commitment by Editors, Executive Editors, Referees and our Publishing Team. The impact factor is 3.688, a rise of 3.1% compared with the previous year (impact factor 3.58). BJCP is ranked 50th out of 254 journals in Pharmacology and Pharmacy, a rise of three positions. Editors Ton de Boer (Utrecht) joined as European Editor. Sarah Ross joined as Education Editor. Annette Gilchrist continues her term as Senior Online Editor for both BJCP and BJP. Jim Ritter completes his term as Editor-in-Chief in December 2014. Executive Editorial Board Dr Groeneveld, Dr Jennifer Martin, Dr Nicholas Moore and Dr Arne Ring joined the executive editorial board. We would like to express our appreciation for the dedication and hard work from Dr Andrea Malizia, Dr Simon Day, Dr Robert Bies and Dr Andrew McLachlan, who have ended their terms. Ton De Boer has moved to a Senior Editor position. International Editors Dr William Haynes and Dr Ross Feldman joined the International Editorial Board. We are grateful to Professor Albert Frauman who concludes his term at the end of December 2014. The Editors thank all Board Members, both Executive Editors and International Editors, for their commitment and enthusiasm over the past year. The management board continues to have monthly teleconferences which have helped to streamline the journal processes and to deal with appeals in a fair and structured manner. We thank all the publishing staff at Wiley including Lisa Deakin (Senior Journal Publishing Manager), Annette Butler (Editorial Assistant), Elizabeth Spicer (Production Editor) and Harpreet Michhiana (Marketing Manager) for their unwavering and enthusiastic support, overseen with calm efficiency by our Society Relationship Consultant, Elizabeth Whelan.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,019 | 0,104 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,010 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,008 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,157 | 0,105 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».