The Rebirth of The Philippine Agriculturist as an International Journal
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
At the start of my term as Editor-in-Chief of The Philippine Agriculturist in November 1998, there were two challenges that I had to meet. One was the perceived decline in prestige of the Journal as shown by dwindling subscriptions. This was articulated by Dr. Jose R. Velasco, a retired professor of the College of Agriculture and a former editor-in-chief of the Journal, who remarked, “It used to be one of the most prestigious agricultural journals. It is now relegated to the forgotten shelves of libraries.” The other challenge had reference to the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI). Dean Cecilio Arboleda of the College of Agriculture kept mentioning “ISI” when he talked of scientific articles of the faculty members. When I learned that the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), now Thomson Reuters, was the world’s arbiter of world class journals and that of 8000 journals submitted to it, only 10% to 12% were accredited, then I knew that the problem of prestige was tied up with the accreditation of The Philippine Agriculturist journal by the ISI. So, I read all articles pertaining to ISI and impressed on the journal staff that meeting its requirements was to be our goal as a team. One of the requirements was timeliness. A quarterly journal, which was what The Philippine Agriculturist was, had to be released during the stipulated quarter. This was the greatest stumbling block for the Journal. It was one year late and two issues were lumped into one. This was the status for the preceding 10 years. Another requirement was internationality. The Journal should follow international conventions in editing and there should be international diversity among authors and editors. The Journal editors use an international manual for editors so the former was not a problem. Some of our graduate students come from other Asian countries and their theses comprise a lot of the articles of the Journal, so internationality of authors was also not a problem. International editors? That was a problem that was a bit difficult to solve. The Journal had only two editors, both from UPLB – a part-time chief editor and one full-time managing editor. That’s it. The criteria for internationality also state that a journal should represent the best in the region or geographic area. That was not a problem. The researches of most UPLB staff are excellent by all standards and could be considered among the best in countries that make up the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Definitely, it is the best scientific journal in the country. It won the Outstanding Scientific Journal Award in 1997 given by the National Academy of Science and Technology despite its being late and having two issues lumped into one. The other requirement was the peer review process which was also not a problem. However, we still increased the number of reviewers to two per article to insure excellence of the articles.
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 | 0,033 | 0,039 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,014 | 0,025 |
| Communication savante | 0,042 | 0,020 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,013 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,011 | 0,036 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,013 | 0,006 |
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 ».