Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The greatest achievement of 2008 was the increase of the impact factor for Multiple Sclerosis, moving from 2.77 to 3.26, and placing it at number 29 of 146 clinical neurology journals. This increase is based on the preceding 3 years, and given our improved performance over subsequent years, there is every expectation that now that the climb has started we will see it continue. Fingers crossed! 2008 also saw a steady increase in quantity and, more importantly, quality of submissions. There has also been an impressive increase in on-line downloads which reached a total of 68,375 in 2007, reflecting a 225% increase on the previous year. We have been pleased to accept a number of important meeting reports and consensus papers which we feel are of great interest to our readership and also underline the journal’s position as the preeminent journal in the field of multiple sclerosis. We have also had an increasing number of editorials on some of our more controversial papers – a trend which we hope to see continue. Despite the increase in the number of pages available in 2008, the responsiveness of the journal has not improved to a major degree – at least in terms of papers appearing in print. However, there has been a major advance in timely publishing of papers on-line and authors can now anticipate seeing their paper on-line (and therefore citable) within 2 months of acceptance. 2009 will also see us moving to 12 issues of 124 pages each, which represents a further 30% increase. The challenge will be to improve responsiveness, and at the same time increase the quality of the journal. There was also an increase in the number of requests for supplements last year. This is welcome provided we can be confident of their quality, objectivity, and interest to our readers. We have drafted guidance to assist in the selection of supplements which also advocates the involvement of a member of the editorial board in the review process. The 2008 editorial board meeting in Montreal was very well attended (27 of the 45 members) and extremely lively. The board members made a number of suggestions relating to improvements in the journal such as more commentaries, higher quality illustrations, and easier access to material for teaching purposes. The possibility of offering CME (Continuing Medical Education) credits to reviewers was also raised. We intend to pursue all of these suggestions vigorously. It is very encouraging to have had such a successful year. We are conscious that the more successful we become the more papers we will attract. To enhance the efficiency of the review process while containing the increasing load for our reviewers, we will continue to use an effective triage system, involving the opinion of our editorial board members, whose expertise covers a very wide range of subjects. We are, as always immensely grateful to the increasing number of people that carry out such timely and constructive reviews. Finally, we wish all our readers, whether of hardcopy or on-line, a prosperous and productive 2009.
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 | 0,007 | 0,036 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,010 | 0,008 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,021 | 0,033 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,059 | 0,039 |
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 ».