Acknowledging the Contribution of Referees
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
As we have explained in our editorial to this issue (12038), IJMR could not function without the support of those referees who give their time freely to ensure that high quality papers are published in journal. The editorial team attempt to select reviewers who are familiar with the topic under consideration and are able to provide a rigorous evaluation of the paper. Occasionally, there may be some compromises as it can be very difficult to obtain reviewers for some areas of research. There have, for example, been papers which have required more that fifteen invitations before we have obtained agreement from three reviewers. Consequently, we are very grateful to those scholars who respond quickly to emails from the editorial team and to those who take on reviews with tight deadlines. Despite difficulties with a small number of papers we have been able to maintain the time to first decision at 69 days. Having a speedy review process is particularly important for IJMR as we always aim to publish state-of-the-art literature reviews. At the same time, we will never compromise on quality and many authors are asked for further minor amendments after their papers have been accepted for publication by the reviewers. The co-editors are keen to expand our database of reviewers and if you would like to contribute to the journal you can register through the IJMR portal at http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijmr. It is our pleasure, on behalf of Wiley Blackwell and BAM, to thank all those listed below who reviewed for the journal in 2013. The majority of reviewers provide diligent and thoughtful feedback that enables authors to develop their papers to the standard required for publication in IJMR. One measure of the quality of reviews is that we now reject very few papers at the second review stage. We would also like to acknowledge the outstanding contributions by a number of scholars who provided excellent reviews over the period. In consultation with the associate editors, David Denyer and Ellen Parker were highly commended for the quality of their reviewing. After very careful consideration, the co-editors decided that there would be a joint award for reviewer of the year in 2013: Martin Friesl (Lancaster University, UK) and Douglas Cumming (York University, Canada) both made outstanding contributions to the journal. Thank you for your continued support of IJMR.
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.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,008 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
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 découle