MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2012732241 · doi:10.1093/ndt/gfr780

Report from the Editorial Offices

2012· editorial· en· W2012732241 sur OpenAlexaff
Carmine Zoccali

Notice bibliographique

RevueNephrology Dialysis Transplantation · 2012
Typeeditorial
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueHuman auditory perception and evaluation
Établissements canadiensOffice of the Chief Medical Examiner
Organismes subventionnairesEuropean Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association
Mots-clésMedicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

On behalf of all our staff and the publisher OUP, we would like to convey our best wishes for the New Year to our readers, editors and reviewers and want to thank them all for their continuing support of the journal. With this editorial, we also provide an update on last year’s achievements. As shown below, the number of original submissions to NDT continues to slowly increase, with a current average of 10–12 submissions per day. Total number of submissions 3127 (2168 original submissions and 959 revisions) Total number of submissions 3444 (2333 original submissions and 1111 revisions) Total number of submissions 3267 (2343 original submissions and 924 revisions) From August 2007 on, NDT has only accepted original articles, preliminary/short communications, invited translational nephrology papers, invited and non-invited editorial comments, editorial reviews, exceptional cases and letters to the editor related to previous NDT publications. We now give an overview of the different manuscript types that have been published in NDT in 2010 and the first 11 months of 2011 and their respective percentages. 2010 (% of published articles) Editorial Comment 7% Exceptional Case 5% Letter 5% Reply 4% Original Article 73.5% Preliminary Communication 1% Special Feature 0.5% Translational Nephrology 2% Editorial Review 2% January – November 2011 (% of published articles) Editorial Comment 11% Exceptional Case 6% Letter 9% Reply 7% Original Article 66% Preliminary Communication 1% Special Feature 2% Translational Nephrology 1% Editorial Review 4% Short Communication 2% In the upcoming issues, some of these manuscript types will be renamed and others will be added. We now illustrate the country of origin of the lead authors of publications in NDT in 2010 and the first 11 months of 2011. Although NDT still predominantly attracts submissions from European countries, it is noteworthy that approximately 20% originated from the USA and Japan in 2010 and the first 11 months of 2011. This overview also illustrates that a wide range of other regions are represented, reflecting the growing international recognition of the journal. 2010 Australia 2% Austria 1% Belgium 4% Brazil 2% Canada 5% China 4% France 7% Germany 11% Greece 2% Italy 8% Japan 6% The Netherlands 7% Poland 2% Spain 5% Sweden 2% Turkey 3% United Kingdom 14% United States 15% January – November 2011 Australia 2% Austria 1% Belgium 2% Brazil 3% Canada 2% China 8% France 3% Germany 6% Greece 1% Italy 5% Japan 8% The Netherlands 4% Poland 1% Spain 4% Turkey 5% United Kingdom 6% United States 12% Manuscripts submitted to NDT are assigned to the handling theme editor within two days and we aim to provide the authors with a first decision on their manuscript within 6-8 weeks of submission. NDT is a fast journal that operates with an efficient editorial and production process. While many manuscripts achieve our target of 4 weeks (receipt by the publisher to online publication), the mean is somewhat higher at about 6 weeks due to author queries or delays in returning proofs. Papers published online are citable and included in Medline. The time to print publication varies due to the number of articles awaiting inclusion into an issue but the majority of papers are published within 19-22 weeks from acceptance date. We are working hard to speed up print publication, and now that fewer manuscripts are being accepted, we hope to acheive our target of 12 weeks by the middle of this year. High-priority manuscripts are fast-tracked. We now compare the acceptance and rejection rates for submissions to NDT. In view of the high number of submissions, and on the previous recommendation of the editorial board, the rejection rates for virtually all non-invited papers have substantially increased. Acceptance rate 2009: 35.3% Rejection rate 2009: 64.7% Acceptance rate 2010: 35% Rejection rate 2010: 65% Acceptance rate Jan-Nov 2011: 32.8% Rejection rate Jan-Nov 2011: 67.2% Immediate rejections by EIC Jan-Nov 2011: 12.8% Figure 1 illustrates the number of HTML and PDF electronic downloads of full articles from NDT, expressed as number per 3-month interval since 2006. This number steadily increased over the years and is further testimony of the growing interest in the journal. Figure 2 shows the average number of full-text downloads per month for NDT. Usage continues to increase reaching a new high of 258,500 in 2010, an increase of ∼2% from 2009. Downloads per month have increased from 221,000 in 2007 to 239,000 in 2008 and 253,000 in 2009. For the first 10 months of 2011, the average full- text downloads are 224,000. Electronic downloads of NDT articles since 2006. The 2010 impact factor, published in June 2011, showed an increase to 3.564. Figure 3 shows the change in impact factor from 1997–2010. NDT is ranked 12 th out of 69 journals in the Urology/Nephrology category. Average number of full-text downloads per month for NDT, 2001–2011. NDT impact factor 1997–2010. In July 2011, the new editorial team took over. Some exciting new changes to the journal will be introduced throughout the year. Not only a new cover and editorial board but also new manuscript types and a more colourful layout are some of the modifications that will hopefully be appreciated by our readers and which are meant to turn NDT into an even more successful journal. We would like to acknowledge the support of our readers and authors and thank our subject editors, editorial board members and our publisher OUP for all their help and hard work. A special word of thanks goes to the council of the ERA-EDTA for their support and encouragement.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,009
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Éditorial · Signal consensuel: Éditorial
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,084
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,282

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0090,038
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0030,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0040,002
Bibliométrie0,0040,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,001
Communication savante0,0120,004
Science ouverte0,0030,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0150,014
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0840,090

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,012
Tête enseignante GPT0,256
Écart entre enseignants0,244 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreÉditorial

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2012
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentnon

Explorer davantage

Même revueNephrology Dialysis TransplantationMême sujetHuman auditory perception and evaluationTravaux en français237 207