Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Haemophilia is entering the 14th year of publication. The success of the journal depends on the high quality of the articles submitted, the reviewers who are generous with their time and expertise, the active readership and the support of good publishers. The 2006 impact factor (IF) for Haemophilia is 3.073 and we believe this reflects the growing success of the journal (Fig 1). ISI Haemophilia 2006 impact factor calculation and trends. The most cited papers in 2004 and 2005 which contribute to the 2006 impact factor are shown in Table 1. There are 61 journals listed under the Haematology subject ranking and the aggregate IF for the subject is 5.099 with a median 2.405. The ranking and IF for Haemophilia, J.Thromb Haemost and Blood are respectively 22 (3.073), 9 (5.138) and 2 (10.37). However, the IF is not the only measure of quality; the increasing number of article downloads is another indication of the growing readership of the journal (Fig. 2). Haemophilia online article downloads. In 2006 Haemophilia articles were downloaded 115 564 times through Blackwell Synergy and other on-line hosts. The annual growth of on-line article downloads is illustrated in Fig. 2. The most frequently downloaded articles for 2006 are shown in Table 2. Haemophilia is the official journal of the World Federation of Haemophilia (WFH) and this is reflected in the truly international authorship. In 2006 contributing authors came from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, India, Iran, Israel, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Pakistan, Poland, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, UK and USA. The most frequent contributing countries were USA, UK, Italy and Canada. Since 1999 there has been an industry sponsored Japanese edition of Haemophilia– Akira Yoshioka, a member of our editorial board, selects papers which are translated into Japanese. In 2008 it is planned to start a Chinese edition edited by Renchi Yang, a new member of our editorial board. The circulation of Haemophilia continues to increase worldwide – in 2006 there were 5556 institutional subscriptions. Consortia libraries offering access to Haemophilia in 2006 included 2761 with paid access, but more importantly 2684 institutions in the developing world with free or low paid access to the journal through the initiatives of HINARI (World Health Organization’s Health Internetwork Access to Research Initiative) and INASP (International Network for the Availability of Scientific Publications). There are two editorial offices: the European office, based in the UK, has the editor Christine Lee supported by the editorial assistant Polly Sullivan and the US office has the editor Craig Kessler supported by the editorial assistant Lisa Jacobs. These offices are responsible for commissioning reviews and making decisions about submitted manuscripts. These editors are supported by Mike Makris as reviews editor and Louis Aledort as meeting report editor. Boon Hwee Chia, the production editor in Singapore, is responsible for the final proof editing and on-line submission. The journal is printed in Chennai, India. Judith Barback is the journal publishing manager, based at Wiley-Blackwell in Oxford, and she oversees the whole production. Tobias Trinkl is the business development manager responsible for supplements and is based in Berlin. All activity is managed through Manuscript Central (http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hae) on-line. The average number of weeks from submission to ‘on-line early’ and print publication respectively was 9 and 10 weeks in 2006. Since Haemophilia is only published bi-monthly, this represents timely publication. During 2007 Blackwell Publishing entered the merger with John Wiley & Sons to become Wiley-Blackwell. The merger will allow Blackwell to expand its marketing and sales reach, allowing Haemophilia to benefit from greater circulation and accessibility. The merger will also allow for an increase in investment in technology, which will give the opportunity to provide enhanced web services for readers and authors of Haemophilia over the coming years. In 2008 we look forward to publishing the abstracts and State of Art volume for the XXVIIIth meeting of WFH in Istanbul. We would like to thank our contributors, reviewers and readers for their continuing support and we look forward to a successful year of publishing for Haemophilia in 2008. Judith Barback is the Journal Publishing Manager for Haemophilia and is employed by Wiley-Blackwell.
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 | 0,001 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,163 | 0,098 |
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 ».