MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2042007246 · doi:10.1242/jeb.056747

Margaret Clements, JEB Administrator, retires

2011· article· en· W2042007246 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kathryn Knight

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2011
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
ThématiqueGenetics, Bioinformatics, and Biomedical Research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPleasureEditor in chiefMedicineHistoryManagementPsychologyNeuroscience

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Anyone who has telephoned the Editorial Office of The Journal of Experimental Biology over the past 16 years will be familiar with the cheerful voice that answered, ‘Hello, JEB office,’ and then greeted familiar names with pleasure as it recognised the caller. That voice belongs to Margaret Clements, who welcomed authors as colleagues and friends and has dedicated much of the past two decades to the smooth running of the JEB peer review process. However, this long and happy association finally ended on 10 February 2011, when Margaret retired from her role as Senior Editorial Administrator.Although Margaret officially became the JEB administrator on 1 July 1994, she already had a long affiliation with the journal, which began in the 1970s while she was working as Secretary to John Treherne at the AFRC Unit of Invertebrate Chemistry and Physiology in Cambridge, UK. At the time, Treherne was the Editor of JEB and, when his journal administrator, Jean Wallis, was on holiday, Margaret temporarily stepped into her role to keep the journal running. In 1978, Treherne launched the annual JEB Symposia and invited Margaret to help run the first of these cross-disciplinary conferences – the subject of which was Cellular Oscillators – in Titisee, Germany. The symposium was such a success that this became the first of many JEB meetings that Margaret arranged annually in venues across Europe, America and Australia.Reminiscing about her early days with the journal, Margaret recalls that the JEB office was very different from what it is today, equipped only with an electronic typewriter and telephone. Authors submitted three printed copies of each manuscript ready for peer review. Jean and Margaret posted the manuscript to referees, accompanied by a letter inviting the recipient to review. She recalls that it could take anything up to 2 months for the first reviews to come in and says, ‘We even used to buy stamps and put them in with the package so that the referees could send it back.’By the time that Margaret became the full-time JEB administrator in 1994, Charlie Ellington had replaced Treherne as Editor and had recently been joined by a new Editor, Bob Boutilier. In the interim, the office had acquired an IBM computer to log manuscripts and an electric typewriter with a few standard letter templates that Margaret could personalise. After Ellington stepped down later in 1994, Margaret continued working closely with Boutilier, communicating with the ever-growing international team of Editors that he recruited. In addition to allocating manuscripts to the team of editors, Margaret also corresponded on Boutilier's behalf with the authors and referees of manuscripts that he had assigned himself. ‘I used to print out manuscripts and prepare folders for Bob and he'd go through and personalise the letters that I was going to send out,’ explains Margaret.In the following years, the office continued modernising, introducing email and eventually online manuscript submission. However, in 2003, Boutilier's health began to fail. ‘Before he went into hospital I was going to visit him every other night in Sydney Sussex College with manuscripts. That was the time I managed to persuade him we could do a lot of our communication by email,’ recalls Margaret. Then, in September 2003, Boutilier became dangerously ill and appointed Hans Hoppeler and Peter Lutz as joint Deputy Editors. During the time of Boutilier's final illness, Margaret worked closely with Hoppeler and Lutz to keep the peer review system running seamlessly while visiting Boutilier in hospital and keeping his family back in Canada informed of his condition.After Boutilier's death in December 2003, Margaret continued working with Hoppeler and Lutz until Hoppeler was appointed as the journal's 6th Editor-in-Chief in August 2004. By now, The Company of Biologists was beginning to investigate alternative systems to keep track of manuscripts in all three of its journals and, in 2006, rolled out a new bespoke web-based manuscript trafficking system that would allow authors, editors and referees to track the progress of manuscripts through peer review from anywhere in the world.Over the years, Margaret has developed strong connections with the Community that publishes in the journal. She became a familiar face on the JEB stand at The Society of Experimental Biologists annual meeting and has shepherded many young scientists through their travelling fellowship applications. Thinking about the scientists that she has corresponded with, Margaret says, ‘I'm interested in what they're doing and I still like to look at the abstracts so that I can get a rough idea about the work. I have a small knowledge, but JEB's subject area is so wide. I think that's what has made the job so enjoyable for me.’Margaret has also worked closely with all of the Editors at the journal and says, ‘I have been lucky to work with four great Editors-in-Chief and the rest of the Editorial team’. Reflecting on Margaret as a colleague, Hoppeler says, ‘She has introduced me to the duties and joys of being an Editor; she has always kindly reminded me when something was in danger of going amiss or being forgotten and she is probably the best source of information about people working in the field of Comparative Physiology. I will miss the personal touch that Margaret brought to her day to day work with authors, referees and Editors.’While we send Margaret our very best wishes for a long and fulfilling retirement, we also extend a warm welcome to Sue Chamberlain, who has taken over Margaret's responsibilities as Senior Editorial Administrator. Sue has many years of publishing experience, having been an Editorial Administrator on our sister journal, the Journal of Cell Science, since 2005, and she is excited by the new opportunities and challenges that lie ahead in her new role at the JEB.

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)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Expérimental (laboratoire) · Signal consensuel: Expérimental (laboratoire)
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,066
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,454

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
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 Opus0,041
Tête enseignante GPT0,336
Écart entre enseignants0,295 · 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'étudeExpérimental (laboratoire)
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

Citations2
Publié2011
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Experimental BiologyMême sujetGenetics, Bioinformatics, and Biomedical ResearchTravaux en français237 207