Citing the taxonomic literature: what a difference a year makes
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
We all know that the world of scientific publishing has \nchanged profoundly since the onset of the digital revolution. \nOne relatively new development is the rapid publication \nof scientific papers online, frequently before they are \ncopyedited and typeset, and sometimes even before being \npeer reviewed (Sheldon 2018). Climate of the Past is one \nsuch journal that posts manuscripts online before they \nhave been refereed. The purpose of doing this is to allow \nonline discussion of a manuscript while it is under review in \nthe conventional sense. Manuscripts may thus benefit \nfrom any useful feedback from readers as well as from the \nformal reviews. \nThe above developments mean that scientific articles \nmay appear online long before being assigned to a \nparticular volume/issue and with final page numbers. Such \nassignments commonly occur in the following year when the \ncomplete volumes or issues of a journal appear in print and/ \nor digitally. Before the digital revolution, authors had to wait \nperhaps 12 months or more between acceptance and final \npublication. Today, just a week or two may elapse before the \ntypescript of an accepted manuscript is available online. In \nmost respects this revolution is good, especially now that \nmany authors aim for metricised output targets. However, \nsuch early publication of a paper may cause complications \nregarding its referencing, but in most cases this does not \nreally matter so long as the reference in a bibliography leads \nto the retrieval of the correct publication. For example, the \npaper cited below as Pound and Riding (2015) was initially \nissued online in 2015, prior to assignment to a volume of \nthe Journal of the Geological Society published in 2016. \nBefore 2016 it would have also been cited as Pound and \nRiding (2015) but that situation would not have lasted for \nlong and would have affected very few, if any, citations. \nElectronic publication of a paper prior to assignment of \nthe volume number and final pagination can be confusing, \nbut in most cases problems are limited to referencing. \nHowever, it has critical implications for papers with biological \nsystematics, especially those with new nomenclatural \nproposals (new taxa, combinations, substitute names, etc. – \nso-called nomenclatural novelties). Until recently, codes of \nnomenclature in botany and zoology required nomenclatural \nnovelties to be published in paper format in publicly \ndistributed articles. However, the most recent codes permit \nthe publication of nomenclatural novelties in a hybrid (online \nand paper) journal or even in a purely electronic periodical \n(but not in an online database or catalogue).
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) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
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 ».