MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2038774068 · doi:10.1308/003588413x13511609956976

A year of progress

2012· article· en· W2038774068 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Colin Johnson

Notice bibliographique

RevueAnnals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2012
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueClinical practice guidelines implementation
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésAnnalsAuditPublicationImpact factorQuality (philosophy)Quarter (Canadian coin)ConfusionPublishingPublic relationsLibrary scienceComputer scienceHistoryPsychologyPolitical scienceLawBusinessAccounting

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

It has been a satisfying year for the Annals, building on the progress of previous years and enabling us to look forward to 2013 with confidence. We continue to receive large numbers of submissions. In 2012 over 1,000 articles were offered to us, of which a quarter were research papers. The quality of these research papers has improved and we now receive very few audits. (We rarely publish single-unit audits.) During this year, we have managed to maintain a very short time between acceptance and publication (on average about 3–4 months), and our thanks go to an excellent production team, our copy editor Tara Nikovskis and our new typesetters Hobbs, who have done an excellent job in their first year. We said goodbye to Jon Hackett, our Production Manager, who has moved to an academic post. We are fortunate to have Matthew Whitaker, who stepped into his shoes and continued the high standard that this role requires. We continue to rely heavily on our reviewers (who are acknowledged elsewhere in this issue). They help maintain the high standard of research publications, reflected again in our rising impact factor, which now stands at 1.231. During 2012, we have continued to improve the functions of our online submission system. This is getting a further overhaul in the coming weeks, when authors submitting research papers should find it easier to use. We recognise that our existing submission channel including both the Annals and the Bulletin caused some confusion so we have tried to make the separate channels of submission for either the Annals or the Bulletin clearer to ensure that papers are considered appropriately from the outset. Our Technical Section continues to flourish under the editorship of Bruce Campbell. This section is a constant source of interest, and here too we have reduced the time between acceptance and publication. A notable success this year has been collection of all the published technical notes and tips into a single volume. This has only been possible because of the hard work of the editors Mike McCarthy and Bruce Campbell as well as Adam Brownsell from the Publications Department. Over 700 articles have been compiled, sorted and made available on the College website and can be searched and downloaded free of charge, allowing readers to browse and search through the combined experience and knowledge of hundreds of surgeons gathered over a decade of practice. Our first Associate Editor has completed her term of office this year. Jyoti Shah has made a tremendous contribution in this role and has taken responsibility for editing review articles. She has now moved into a ‘senior’ position as Review Editor. Jyoti also managed the publication of a series of reviews of perioperative care and, after a brief rest, this series will return later in the year. We now have a new Associate Editor, who will have the opportunity to learn from the inside about scientific journal publication. Masood Khan, a consultant urologist in Leicester, will be developing his own project to enhance the content of the Annals and Bulletin. Dual publication remains a recurring issue. A further case was brought to our attention by an alert reader. (See notice on page 25). Authors should be aware that any material published in paper or online formats should be original and that dual publication represents serious publication malpractice. The Annals continues to support the high standards of the Committee on Publication Ethics in relation to all such matters. In this issue we have included a notice from the National Institute for Health Research National Surgery Specialty Group. This underlines our commitment to research in all the specialties of surgery, and we will publish regular updates of surgical trials in progress in the UK and approved by this group. Looking forward to the New Year, we will maintain our average acceptance-to-publication time below four months and look to improve manuscript handling. On behalf of the College, the Annals has been involved in working with the British Journal of Surgery to establish a one-day course entitled How to Write a Surgical Paper. This is based heavily on the course developed by Professor Derek Alderson for the British Journal of Surgery. We at the Annals feel it is appropriate that the College should offer this excellent training course to surgeons in all disciplines. The first course will run on 1 March and we hope it will become a regular feature of the College education programme. Finally, we have had two successful cover image competitions with a range of interesting and varied images submitted by readers. This year we will carry a series of illustrations related to surgical operations, prepared by surgical illustrators. There will be no competition for an overall prize but readers who require the services of an illustrator will be able to find contact details attached to each contribution. We hope you enjoy these images as well as the scientific content of the Annals during the coming year.

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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,093
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,349

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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 Opus0,187
Tête enseignante GPT0,434
Écart entre enseignants0,247 · 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 tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

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

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

En bref

Citations13
Publié2012
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAnnals of The Royal College of Surgeons of EnglandMême sujetClinical practice guidelines implementationTravaux en français237 207