Editors' report, November 2013
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
During 2013 (January to December issues) BJCP published, in electronic and no longer in paper-based form, Volumes 75 and 76 comprising: 4 Editors' views, 1 Editors' report, 1 Editors' pick, 1 Viewpoint, 1 Appreciation, 67 Reviews, 6 Systematic reviews, 148 Main papers, 6 Methods in Clinical Pharmacology, 6 Commentaries, 9 Book reviews, 4 Themed sections (Nutraceuticals, Biological Products, Cancer Therapeutics, Novel Therapeutic Approaches to Chronic Kidney Disease), 29 Letters to the Editor, 2 Proceedings/Abstracts with one as a Supplement and a Special Issue ‘Safeguarding Drug Treatment and Health Technology’ which comprised 1 editorial, 1 review and 8 original papers. Most of these data are similar to those in previous years, with the Senior Editorial and Reviews Boards continuing their focus on high quality invited reviews and being underpinned by original and main papers of increasingly high quality. We received (1 January to 31 October 2013) 553 submissions (about 10% fewer compared with the corresponding time period for 2012 – note that we have had increasing numbers of pre-submission enquiries), of which 385 (3% fewer than 2012) were original papers. Of the total submissions, 117 (or 21%) have been accepted and 299 (54%) rejected/withdrawn or relapsed with the remainder pending a decision or awaiting a revision. Of the total number of original papers submitted, 10% have been accepted, 66% rejected and the remaining 24% are pending a decision or awaiting a revision. For the full year in 2012, we accepted 28% of original papers and 76% of review articles. The figures for 2013 to date suggest that the acceptance rate for original papers may be lower, reflecting an increasing number of quality papers that need to be accommodated in the journal. Overall submissions to date came from 63 countries (52 in 2012, 49 in 2011 and 54 in 2010): United Kingdom (85, 16% of total), USA (62, 11%), China (62, 11%), The Netherlands (34, 6.1%), Italy (31, 5.6%), France (28, 5.1%), Germany (26, 4.7%), India (24, 4.3%), Spain (24, 4.3%), Australia (18, 3.3%), Japan (18, 3.3%), Korea (14, 2.5%), Switzerland (14, 2.5%) and 50 other countries with less than 10 submissions each. Compared with 2012, no new country made it into the list of 10 or more submissions whereas Denmark, Sweden and Canada dropped out. Substantial increases were noted from China and Italy. Papers were submitted and handled electronically via the ScholarOne website. The impact factor pleasingly increased from 2.96 to 3.58. BJCP is now ranked 53rd out of 261 journals in Pharmacology and Pharmacy, a rise of 21 positions from last year. Out of 8471 journals in the impact factor list, the BJCP is ranked 1073rd, a rise of 278 positions and placing it into the top 13% compared with the top 17% last year. Lionel Lewis, the inaugural American Senior Editor, completed his term and David Flockhart commenced mid-year for a 6 month overlap with Lionel followed by full responsibility from January 2014. The increasing number of high quality North American submissions is testament to Lionel's success. We welcome Brian Gennery and Ian Wong to the Executive Editorial Board. We express our appreciation for the hard work done for the journal to Edmund Lee who has reached the end of his term. We also welcome Elizabeth Phillips (Institute for Immunology & Infectious Diseases, Murdoch University, Australia) who joined the International Editorial Board. Annette Gilchrist (Chicago College of Pharmacy, Midwestern University, Illinois, USA) was appointed by the BPS from 1 July 2013 to the newly created position of Senior Online Editor for both BJCP and BJP. The Editors thank the members of the Executive, International and Reviews Boards for their contributions over the past year. Time has never been so much at a premium and the senior editors and the Society are mindful of and extremely grateful for the generosity of our editorial teams in this regard. The senior editors have monthly teleconferences with key persons from Wiley and the Society (Ruth Meyer). These teleconferences have greatly facilitated communication and helped streamline the journal processes and to deal with appeals in a fair, timely and structured manner. We thank all the publishing staff at Wiley including Stephen Montgomery (Managing Editor), Kim Harris (Editorial Assistant), Michael Willis (Editorial Services Manager), Amanda Hunter (Production Editor until May), Elizabeth Spicer (new Production Manager) and Phil Wright (Marketing) for their unwavering and enthusiastic support, led expertly and overseen with calm efficiency by our publisher, Elizabeth Whelan.
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 | 0,012 | 0,049 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,011 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,008 | 0,007 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,284 | 0,264 |
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 ».