Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Figure“There is no motivation higher than being a good writer.” —Tom Wolfe Colleagues, after having the privilege to serve 2 decades as the editor-in-chief of Advances in Skin & Wound Care, I have the distinct honor of being succeeded by 2 esteemed members of our shared discipline: Dr Gary Sibbald, BSc, MD, DSc (Hons), MEd, FRCPC (Med Derm), FAAD, MAPWCA; and Dr Elizabeth A. Ayello, PhD, RN, CWON, ETN, MAPWCA, FAAN. They will assume the roles of co–editors-in-chief (a promotion from their current roles as clinical editors), and I will transition to editor emeritus. These 2 clinicians provide a substantial nexus to the future, and they are both highly esteemed authors, consultants, practitioners, educators, and global diplomats in the wound care universe. I am honored to follow their lead in implementing their new forward-looking plans, goals, and agendas to take Advances in Skin & Wound Care to an even higher level. Throughout my career in the military and medicine, I have had the distinct privilege of working with people much smarter than myself. I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the quiet professionals of the world-class publishing unit of Lippincott Williams & Wilkins/Wolters Kluwer Health; they accomplish great things in relative anonymity. Currently, they include Chloe Falivene, MA, a highly effectual managing editor, and Andrei Greska, BA, our steady publishing assistant, as they prepare and steer 12 grinding editions of the journal a year to make up our portfolio. Moreover, they are responsible for managing the editorial board, maintaining a confidential and fair peer-review process, coordinating topics for departments, commissioning manuscripts, and editing every word that appears in this publication. Sometimes, though, I think their biggest job is keeping me on schedule. I would also like to thank Kathleen Greaves (senior managing editor, retired), Daniella Thoren (publisher), and Theresa Steltzer (senior director), who provide the operational and quality framework for the journal. “Quiet professionalism” also appropriately describes the highly competent behind-the-scenes work accomplished by the journal’s peer reviewers. I extend our gratitude to all the authors, clinical editors, editorial board members, and peer reviewers who contribute to the success of the journal. It is their clinical expertise and research findings that provide quality content for our readers. I owe a special debt of gratitude to Sharon Baranoski, MSN, RN, CWOCN, APN, DAPWCA, FAAN, founder of the Clinical Symposium on Advances in Skin & Wound Care. Reflecting on the leadership of the journal over the last 30 years, I am honored to be counted among several editors-in-chief who served. Over time, the journal has transformed, beginning with its initial title Decubitus (Chicago, 1988 until 1990). By 1990, the tagline for Decubitus had changed to “The Journal of Skin Ulcers,” and in 1994, Advances in Wound Care, accompanied by the tagline “The Journal for Prevention and Healing.” In 2000, we changed the name again to Advances in Skin & Wound Care (“The International Journal for Prevention and Healing”). In the intervening years, we have evolved from a paper-based system of editorial processes to an online submission and review platform. Thanks to the resources of Wolters Kluwer and Ovid technologies, our editorial decision-making platform facilitates a rapid manuscript assessment cycle. The various metrics and trends capturing online article usage usage provide an accounting of the most accessed and downloaded content. The acceptance rate of the journal has declined as we have become more selective and most articles go through several rounds of systematized reviews. Manuscripts are submitted from around the world, including Australia, Brazil, Turkey, Italy, India, Hong Kong, Germany, Mexico, and China, as well as the United States and Canada. Finally, I must thank our loyal readers for their steadfast fidelity for the now more than 3 decades of our existence. Our readers interpret the thought and content of our ever-expanding coverage and apply the relevant clinical research and best practices to their patients to prevent and heal wounds. As we maintain our strategic foothold in an increasingly competitive and crowded editorial space, we look to the future, with the need to keep pace with technology and timely content delivery through multimedia. It is time to hit the proverbial organizational refresh button and reimagine our interdisciplinary, practice-focused tool for clinicians. Old soldiers and editors never die; they keep on keeping on!Figure
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 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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, 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 ».