Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
JBJS Open Access was introduced in 2016 after a lengthy period of discussion by the JBJS Editorial Board and Board of Trustees. The goal of this initiative was to expand our ability to publish basic-science and clinical research findings as well as new and innovative approaches that have the potential to impact the care of musculoskeletal disease and injury worldwide. This new platform was intended to provide opportunities for authors to submit manuscripts that would be of interest to readers outside of North America. JBJS OA was designed to offer the same quality, editorial oversight, and innovation as the JBJS flagship journal, all of which would be achieved by relying on our well-established pool of Consultant Reviewers. One of our initial goals was to achieve indexing as soon as the appropriate milestones were reached, after which all previously published articles would be indexed. The JBJS OA peer-review process was established to be independent of JBJS and to provide timely, online, evidence-based content relevant to musculoskeletal health-care practitioners worldwide. The purpose of this editorial is to update the readership on the progress of JBJS OA 2 years after its inception. JBJS OA manuscripts are published on a continuous basis. Since inception, 162 manuscripts (80% clinical and 20% research) have been submitted for review. Manuscripts have been submitted from a wide variety of countries, including the United States, Japan, China, Switzerland, Canada, the Netherlands, New Zealand, South Africa, Taiwan, Germany, India, Indonesia, Jordan, and the United Kingdom. Fifty-one manuscripts have been published to date, with an acceptance rate of 57%. All of the manuscripts are accessible online, without charge, to any reader. The articles cover a wide range of interesting and thought-provoking topics that are relevant to the provision of quality musculoskeletal care. We hope that you will agree that the published manuscripts are equivalent to JBJS articles in terms of clarity, content, and appearance. Interest in JBJS OA has been strong, with approximately 50,000 visits and 100,000 page views since inception. In September 2018, we were pleased to learn that JBJS OA is now live in PubMed Central. We are hopeful that indexing in PubMed Central will (1) encourage more authors to accept transfer to JBJS OA if their JBJS submission is declined and (2) encourage more authors from around the world to submit their manuscripts directly to JBJS OA for review. All submitted manuscripts will continue to receive objective and thoughtful peer review by the Journal’s Consultant Reviewers. On behalf of the Board of Associate Editors, we look forward to updating the readership on the progress of JBJS OA in the future and thank readers for their interest to date.
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.
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 | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,012 | 0,011 |
| Science ouverte | 0,015 | 0,013 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 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 découle