MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2518403116 · doi:10.1097/pr9.0000000000000563

Access to PAIN Reports is now open: IASP inaugurates a new journal

2016· article· en· W2518403116 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
David Yarnitsky, Francis J. Keefe

Notice bibliographique

RevuePAIN Reports · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueHealth Sciences Research and Education
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPublicationPublishingGlobeThe InternetInternet privacyPublic relationsScholarly communicationPolitical scienceWorld Wide WebMedicineComputer scienceLaw

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

We are excited to announce the launch of an open access journal from IASP called PAINReports. The new online journal joins PAIN in offering IASP members and the pain research community 2 publishing venues for the best basic and applied pain research. Although PAIN will continue to publish the foremost research articles in the field, PAIN Reports will offer readers worldwide free access to scientific articles and will expand the publishing terrain for developing countries. Why has IASP entered the field of open access publishing? In an era of easy and common internet access and ubiquitous communications technology, the scientific landscape continues to change before our eyes. Compared with just a few years ago, all of us communicate far more often, more rapidly, and more intensively with our peers around the globe. Communication, of course, is at the heart of our scientific enterprise; scientists and publishers, therefore, cannot refrain from adjusting to this new wave. Today, online scientific journals are proliferating in various fields, even as freedom of access to data remains somewhat elusive. Yet momentum clearly is on the side of open access publishing. The rationale is simple: taxpayer money is being used, justifiably, to finance research, but the results of this research generally are unavailable to the public. In most cases, only members of the scientific community have easy access to journal articles. The open access vision, accordingly, is that all data will be freely accessible to all stakeholders—the public, health policy experts, and the broader scientific community. Money allocated for research increasingly will include funds for open access publication as part of the expense of research. Several steps in this direction already are evident. PubMed Central, acting under the US Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, publishes full-text versions of government-funded research, making these articles publicly accessible. Similar steps have been taken in the United Kingdom, with UK PubMed Central, as well as in Europe and Canada. The Dutch government, currently pursuing a pan-European open science policy platform, aims to shift scientific publications toward open access venues.2 Many medical societies now have at least 1 open access journal, and nearly all scientific publishers support hybrid options, in which authors pay fees to publishers in return for their articles to be open access. (PAIN has this option for authors; as an open access journal, PAIN Reports charges authors publishing fees). For example, the Public Library of Science (PLOS) publishes a major line of open access journals. The most popular of these, PLoS One is one of the largest scientific journals, with approximately 30,000 articles published annually. Overall, there is evidence that the percentage of immediate open access articles has increased from 4.6% of all scientific articles in 2006 to 11% in 2011. If articles that are opened after a 1-year embargo and those published in hybrid journals are added, the numbers increase to 8.1% and 16.9%, respectively.1,3 As an online-only journal, PAIN Reports hopes to publish a high volume of articles rapidly and substantially complement PAIN in generating a multifaceted platform for clinical and research communications in pain research and management. The mission statement of PAIN Reports asserts our commitment: PAIN Reports is an official IASP publication. An open access multidisciplinary journal, PAIN Reports promotes a global, rapid, and readily accessible forum that advances clinical, applied, and basic research on pain. The online journal publishes full-length articles as well as brief reports, reviews, meta-analyses, meeting proceedings, and selected case reports. PAIN Reports gives special attention to submissions reporting the results of enterprising and high-risk research and pilot studies as well as locally developed clinical guidelines from scientists and clinicians in developing countries. It is with great excitement that we call for submissions from pain professionals in the clinical and research communities to support PAIN Reports. Conflict of interest statement The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,044
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,024
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche, Études des sciences et des technologies, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesMétarecherche
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,426
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0440,024
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0060,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,220
Tête enseignante GPT0,539
Écart entre enseignants0,319 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2016
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePAIN ReportsMême sujetHealth Sciences Research and EducationTravaux en français237 207