Editors' report, November 2011
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
During 2011 (from 1 January to 31 October) BJCP published: 8 Editors' views, 1 Editors' report, 1 Editors' pick, 1 Editorial, 42 Reviews, 1 Systematic review, 1 Expert Panel report, 100 Main papers, 1 Methods in Clinical Pharmacology, 16 Short reports, 1 Commentary, 15 Book reviews, 2 New Drug Mechanisms, 2 Themed sections, 29 Letters to the Editors and 1 Proceedings/Abstracts. There was one themed issue ‘Haemostasis’. Most of these data are very similar to those in previous years but with an increasing number of invited reviews which we are confident will further enhance the quality of the journal. We received 564 submissions (6% higher compared with 2010), of which 360 (+2%) were original papers and 41 (–7%) were short reports. Of the total submissions, 112 (–1%) have been accepted and 307 (+13%) rejected with the remainder pending a decision or awaiting a revision. Of the total number of original papers submitted, 15% have been accepted, 57% rejected and the 28% remaining are pending a decision or awaiting a revision. For short reports, 20% have been accepted, 58% rejected and the 22% remaining are pending a decision or awaiting a revision. For the full years of 2009 and 2010, we accepted for original papers 39% and 32%, respectively and 41% and 37% short reports. The figures for 2011 so far suggest that acceptance rates will be similar. Original submissions from 1 November 2010 to 31 October 2011 came from 49 countries (47 countries in 2009 and 54 in 2010): United Kingdom (111, 16.5% of total), USA (60, 8.9%), the Netherlands (58, 8.6%), China (49, 7.3%), India (41, 6.1%), France (39, 5.8%), Australia (33, 4.9%), Italy (30, 4.5%), Japan (24, 3.6%), Germany (23, 3.4%), Korea (23, 3.4%), Spain (17, 2.5%), Switzerland (14, 2.1%), Canada (13, 1.9%), Belgium (11, 1.6%), Denmark (11, 1.6%), Sweden (10, 1.5%) and 32 other countries (<10 submissions each). Compared with 2010, Switzerland made it in the list of countries with 10 or more submissions at the expense of Iran and substantial increases were noted from China, the Netherlands, USA, United Kingdom and Korea. Papers were submitted and handled electronically via the ScholarOne website. Median times (2010 figures in brackets) were as follows: from submission to first decision 35 (44) days (range 0–173). from receipt by the referee to return of their report 13 (13) days (range 0–61). from submission to acceptance 86 (115) days (range 0–250). from receipt at Wiley-Blackwell to accepted Article publication 9 (9) days. from receipt at Wiley-Blackwell to print publication 133 (105) days. These results show satisfactory improvements, especially in the categories ‘from submission to first decision’, which has decreased by 9 days (20%) and ‘from receipt by the referee to return of their report’, in which the long tail of up to 61 days has halved compared with 2010. This reflects the outstanding commitment by referees in what is a highly competitive market with increased demands on precious time from more journals and more manuscripts. The impact factor is 3.063, a decline of 6% following 2 years of increases. BJCP is ranked 74th out of 252 journals in Pharmacology and Pharmacy, a slip of eight positions. Out of 8073 journals in the Impact Factor list, the BJCP is ranked 1351th, a decline of 274 positions and slippage into the top 17% compared with top 15% in 2010. We welcome Simon Day, Andrea Malizia, Jan Schellens, David Singh and Andrew Webb to the Executive Editorial Board. Arduino Mangoni, Amin Rostami-Hodjegan, Rafael Schäfers and Mike Schachter have reached the end of their terms and we are extremely grateful for their dedication and the hard work they have done for the journal in this crucial role. (Mike continues to serve on the Reviews Board). We also welcome Fernando de Andres-Trelles, Neil Benowitz, Ingolf Cascorbi, Minne Casteels, David Greenblatt, Geoff Isbister, Evelyne Jacqz-Aigrain, Kathie Knights, Hans Ovelgönne, Olavi Pelkonen, Matthias Schwab and Guilherme Suarez-Kurz to the International Editorial Board and thank Leif Bertilsson, Stephen Clarke, Walter Haefeli, Hillel Halkim, Ian Hall, Atholl Johnston, Farhad Kamali, Joan-Ramon Laporte, David Newell, Oscar Simooya, Jim Slattery, Anthony Smith, Terrence Stephenson, Bruno Stricker, Hosnieh Tajerzadeh, Simon Thomas and Giampaolo Velo whose terms have concluded. The editors thank all Board Members including Reviews, Executive and International editors for their continuing support and contributions over the past year. Monthly teleconferences of senior editors have included key persons from Wiley-Blackwell (currently Stephen Montgomery recently appointed Managing Editor and Elizabeth Whelan, Publisher) and the Society (currently Jonathan Brüün, Director of Communications and Business Development); these teleconferences have greatly facilitated communication and streamlined many processes and editorial board decisions including the occasional appeal. During the year Jonathan replaced Hazel O'Mullen at the monthly teleconferences and we thank Hazel for her counsel and wish her well in her new role with the society as Marketing and Communications Manager. Stephen replaced Katie Howard who we also thank (especially for her work with the Reviews board) and wish her well. During 2011 a meeting with our sister journal BJP has taken place to determine a joint strategy regarding papers, given their scope, which could be submitted to both journals and to Review articles and themed issues. The annual meetings of the Executive editors and of the International Editorial Board are scheduled for December 2011. New lines of reporting for both have been agreed, to a Joint publications board (which provides liaison between society and publisher with input from the clinical section and from the vice principal for meetings as well as from BJP), which meets twice a year and reports to the BPS Executive committee. This should alert us to planned BPS activities and related opportunities to commission themed reviews from leading scientists in each field. We thank all the publishing staff at Wiley-Blackwell including Katie Howard, Victoria Renigan (Editorial Assistant), Michael Willis (Editorial Services Manager), Amanda Hunter (Production Editor) and Phil Wright (Marketing) for their unwavering and enthusiastic support, led expertly and overseen with calm efficiency by our publisher, Elizabeth Whelan.
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 | 0,011 | 0,047 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,011 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,008 | 0,007 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,306 | 0,312 |
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 ».