Editors' Report for 2015, <scp>December</scp> 2015
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
During 2015, the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology published 272 articles in total, 140 of which were classified as research articles, of which 21 were Clinical Trials paper, 4 were on Translational Research, 3 were in the Education series and 1 was part of the New Drug Mechanisms series. Eighty three articles were Reviews, 17 of which were systematic reviews and 3 were meta-analyses; 19 were commissioned and 18 were un-commissioned; 26 were themed. The journal published 26 Letters, 11 Editorials, 7 papers in the Methods in Pharmacology series, 3 Commentaries, 1 Historical Perspective and 1 Book Review. There were four themed issues: Population Analysis in the January issue (79:1), Future of Antimicrobials in the February issue (79:2), Paediatric Prescribing in the March issue (79:3) and Adverse Drug Reactions in the October issue (80:4). We received 655 submissions from 1st January 2015 to 31st October 2015 an increase of 103, of which 440 were original research papers. Of these, 18% have been accepted, with the remainder rejected, pending a decision or awaiting a revision. we have seen a substantial increase of submissions of reviews and meta-analyses, with 108 to date, compared with 75 in 2014. Overall, submissions for the period came from 58 countries (57 countries in 2014 and 63 in 2013): United Kingdom (68, 10% of total), USA (62, 9%), France (58, 9%), the Netherlands (53, 8%), China (51, 7%), Australia (41, 6.2%), Italy (34, 5.3%), India (33, 5%), Germany (31, 4.7%), Spain (26, 3.9%), Canada (18, 2.7%), Korea (18, 2.7%), Japan (15, 2.3%), Denmark (13, 2.0%), and 44 other countries (less than 10 submissions each). Papers were submitted and handled electronically via the ScholarOne website. These results are encouraging, especially in the categories ‘from receipt at Publishers to first publication’, the mean of which has decreased by 2 days and ‘from receipt at the Publishers to issue Publication’, which has decreased by 8 days. This reflects the commitment of the Editors, Executive Editors, Referees and our Publishing Team. The longer time ‘from submission to final acceptance’ asks for our attention. Our Impact Factor (2014) rose again, from 3.688 to 3.878, an enhancement of 5.2% (following a 3.1% in 2013). BJCP is ranked now 45th out of 256 journals (up 5 positions) in the Web of Knowledge Pharmacology and Pharmacy category. In November this year, we were sad to hear that one of our Senior Editors, David Flockhart, passed away. During 2 years he contributed greatly to the BJCP. There will be a separate In Memorial in one of the coming issues of the BJCP. Professor Adam Cohen began his term as the Editor-in-Chief on January 1st 2015. Professor Andrew Somogyi completes his term as Australasian Editor in December 2015, with Professor Geoff Isbister joining as the new Australasian Editor on January 1st 2016. Dr Yoon Loke completes his term as European Editor in December 2015, with Dr Andy Webb joining as the new European Editor on January 1st 2016. Dr Rob Bies joined as the American Senior Editor. Professor David Burger, Dr Serge Cremers, Professor Ann Daly, Professor Arjen Dondorp, Professor Carl Kirkpatrick and Dr Catherine Sherwin joined the Executive Editorial Board. We would like to express our appreciation for the dedication and hard work from Dr Una Martin and Professor Henry Chrystyn, who have ended their terms. Professor Geoff Isbister and Dr Andy Webb have moved to a Senior Editor position, and we would like to thank both for their support of the journal as Executive Editors. Dr Pei Hu, Dr Lionel Lewis and Dr Hongliang Li joined the International Editorial Board. The Senior Editors wish to thank all Board Members for their commitment and enthusiasm over the past year. The Senior Editorial Team continues to have monthly teleconferences, which continue to help manage journal business, to streamline journal processes and to deal with appeals in a fair, timely and structured manner. We thank all the publishing staff at Wiley, including Lisa Deakin (Senior Journal Publishing Manager), Annette Butler (Editorial Assistant), Carmen Sherry (Production Editor) Sally Harvey (Marketing Manager) and Tom Broomfield (Journal Publishing Assistant) for their unwavering and enthusiastic support, overseen with calm efficiency by our Society Relationship Consultant, 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 | 0,016 | 0,086 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,006 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,013 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,010 | 0,007 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,143 | 0,103 |
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 ».