Notice bibliographique
Résumé
It is an honour to share selected reflections on my eight years as editor of the Alberta Journal of Educational Research (AJER).When I took on the role of editor, I could not have imagined the changes that have occurred in that time, and some associated challenges.Over the eight-year period AJER has undergone substantial changes.Major amongst these were the move from being a paper-based journal to an online journal, the dissolution of the Editorial Advisory Board and its replacement with a fully populated Editorial Review Board, and the move to engage graduate students in the production process of the journal as copyeditors.When I began as editor the move to an online format was already well underway through the leadership of then editor, Professor Larry Prochner.Along with this move to 'online' has been a more recent shift of the moving subscriber access wall from two years to one, to reflect changes in the publishing responsibilities of authors publishing from their Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) funded research.The transition was remarkably smooth and, in general, these moves have resulted in positive outcomes for the journal.These include an increasingly wide readership, an increase in the number of submissions (from an increasingly wide range of authors and countries), and an increased efficiency in submission, review, and production processes.Through these shifts, AJER has maintained its reputation as a high quality, eclectic, and affordable journal.These have been positives for the journal.However, of course, there have been challenges.I wrote in Vol.57, No. 1, Spring 2011 (Thomas, 2011) that "recent times have witnessed a marked increase in the number of journals in educational research."This trend has continued at a rapid pace.The majority of new journals are online.Some attend to fields of education that are emerging, or fields where authors are seeking to establish very focused outlets for their scholarship.Other journals attend to specific regional orientations.Most are bona fide, seeking like AJER to publish "original, high-quality research and scholarship in the field of education that has been subject to stringent peer-review" (Thomas, 2011).However, there has also been a marked rise in what have become known as 'Predatory Journals.'These journals are often characterized by limited, if any, qualified peerreview processes, unimaginably fast review and publication times, and, most notably, author fees to publish.Let me be clear that these three factors most often 'cluster' together in the case of such journals.There are of course bona fide journals that charge authors publication fees, and this is not a new practice.What characterizes the predatory journal is the general lack of quality peer review, and the very short times from submission to publication.Most established and experienced authors can (a) recognize such journals, (b) know to steer clear of their requests for submissions and the inevitable promise of speedy publication, and (c) provide advice to those in their communities including emerging scholars to be careful about publishing options.However, the emergence and increasingly visibility and influence of such journals has occurred because of the pressure exerted on many if not most academics to 'publish or perish' and the often-enticing
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 | 0,013 | 0,079 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,007 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,018 | 0,009 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,010 | 0,016 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,034 | 0,033 |
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 ».