Publishing research in Canadian Family Physician: Major policy change.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
As many of you know, during the past 2 years we have had serious delays in publishing research articles that have been through the peer review and revision process and that are waiting in our “holding file.” Some articles have waited up to 12 months after acceptance to be published. This delay is unacceptable. We are proceeding with a plan that addresses the delays we have been experiencing and speeds up the process of publication. During the past year we have been working with PubMed Central. This means that all our peer-reviewed articles, including research, will be listed in the PubMed Central database in full text and will be freely accessible from searches on PubMed. Full-text versions of the articles are already published on the Canadian Family Physician website and will continue to be freely available there as well. The main change is that the print version of Canadian Family Physician will now feature only the abstracts of research articles and the full text will be available on-line at our website. All articles will be fully indexed and, in fact, will be more readily accessible to anyone searching the regular PubMed database. In the print journal, each research abstract will occupy one page in English and one page in French. These two pages contrast with the current length of six to eight pages per article. This saving in print pages allows us to increase the number of research articles published each month. There are distinct advantages to this plan. First, we will now be able to publish more research articles per issue, increasing our capacity and decreasing the time between acceptance and publication. Second, having the full text available from a PubMed search increases the likelihood of an article’s being cited by other researchers. This plan has been discussed at several meetings of the Section of Researchers of the College and has been endorsed by several prominent researchers in Canada. As a result of this change, authors will now be allowed 350 words for the abstract. Because casual readers will see only the abstracts, I suggest researchers add as much specific detail as possible within the new word count. Editor’s key points will also appear on the same page. This is a major change in publishing, and to my knowledge, we are the only journal taking this step. It appears to be the best solution. At Canadian Family Physician, we thought this would be a win-win solution for both authors and readers. It will enable better citation for authors, more rapid publication times, greater capacity for research, and preservation of print pages for other parts of the journal. I would be interested in your comments about this plan, and suggest you contact me at ac.cpfc@ynot. I thank all authors for their patience; I look forward to better serving the research community.
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 | 0,094 | 0,240 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,010 | 0,020 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,020 | 0,016 |
| Communication savante | 0,037 | 0,020 |
| Science ouverte | 0,020 | 0,010 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,069 | 0,029 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,081 | 0,040 |
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 ».