Notice bibliographique
Résumé
As the Dean of the Schools of Nursing and Allied Health Sciences at the University of Nevada Las Vegas (since 2004) and the Editor of Biological Research for Nursing (since 2002), I was both honored and delighted when Dr. Inouye shared with me that the Asian American/Pacific Islander Nurses Association (AAPINA) was interested in developing a journal and asked me to serve as consulting editor. I immediately arranged a phone call with Daniel Ruth, Senior Acquisitions Editor with Sage Publications, a leading international publisher of journals, books, and electronic media for academic, educational, and professional markets since 1965. After many discussions and a few revisions of the journal proposal, Sage agreed to publish the Asian Pacific Island Nursing Journal (APINJ) as an online open-access journal. This is wonderful because it means that the work of AAPINA members and those of others doing work on the Asian American/Pacific Islander population will have a venue for rapid dissemination of their work. The content is available to readers anywhere and anytime at no cost and may easily incorporate multiple media sources such as links, images and sound. This will improve the research in this area and ultimately improve the healthcare of this population. The business advantage of this model is that this can be done cost-effectively without a guarantee of subscriptions. Online open-access journals have been the subject of debate around recent publishing models. Many professionals have resisted this model and categorized all open-access journals as second rate. Some of these have been referred to as “Predatory” journals by Jeffrey Beall, an academic librarian, because of the high author charges and poor or nonexistent review. This has led to confusion for authors and editors in the nursing profession. Therefore, it is appropriate to distinguish between these predatory journals and APINJ, published by a reputable publisher. The table below provides guidelines for evaluating the integrity of a journal. It has been adapted from “Predatory Publishing: What Editors Need to Know” written by the INANE Predatory Publishing Collaborative and published in the September 2014 issue of Nurse Author & Editor. Please keep these issues in mind when submitting manuscripts to any journals, especially those that you have not heard of or seen. Also, you can rest assured that APINJ will develop and evolve into a substantial journal with integrity. Your submissions to APINJ will assure the success and continuance of this journal. Please keep these issues in mind when submitting manuscripts to any journals, especially those that you have not heard of or seen. Also, you can rest assured that APINJ will develop and evolve into a substantial journal with integrity. Your submissions to APINJ will assure the success and continuance of this journal.
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 | 0,004 | 0,010 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,136 | 0,031 |
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 ».