Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The 2020 volume of Protein Engineering, Design and Selection (PEDS) marks the beginning of my appointment as Editor-in-Chief of the journal. Since its foundation in 1986, PEDS has built a strong reputation as a respected publishing destination for our research community. I am thrilled to be given the opportunity to build on the journal’s legacy of rigorous and constructive manuscript review by leading experts that has been part of the journal’s fabric since day one. My esteemed predecessors Alan Fersht and Valerie Daggett, Senior Editors for 15 years, did an exceptional job in preserving the high publication standards of PEDS; please join me in thanking them for their dedicated service to the journal. As the new Editor-in-Chief, I aim to build upon the journal’s strengths, whilst expanding in new directions to ensure PEDS remains the default destination for high-quality protein engineering, design, and evolution papers that are of high interest to our research community. We will continue to publish innovative original research and review articles, relevant to the engineering, design, and selection of proteins for use in biotechnology and therapy, and essential to our understanding of the fundamental links between protein sequence, structure, dynamics, function and evolution. PEDS will also remain dedicated to a rigorous manuscript review process that is fair, but demanding, to ensure authors receive constructive, expert feedback to improve their work. More than ever, I want to increase PEDS’ connection to the research community, with a focus on enhancing author experience. In pursuit of these aims, we are introducing several new initiatives, some of which I highlight below. As recent authors will have noticed, manuscript review is now handled by five leading experts appointed as Associate Editors, who will endeavor to provide a fast, transparent and rigorous yet fair review process. The Associate Editors are making every effort to identify quality expert reviewers who put genuine time into review and provide constructive criticism. To help with manuscript review, Associate Editors are also drawing from the rejuvenated Editorial Advisory Board, comprised of a diverse group of established leaders and rising stars. These individuals have been selected to reflect the diversity of our field, with scientists of different genders, ethnicities, geographic locations, research expertise and career stages represented. This team will continue to advise me on how best to develop the journal for the benefit of our whole research community. Starting with Volume 33, the journal will no longer be available in print and all articles will be published online only. This change ensures that all articles are released as soon as possible following acceptance, prioritizing speed of publication. With the exception of an optional Open Access fee, authors publishing in PEDS will incur no charges whatsoever. We are continually exploring new ways to enhance the visibility of published papers, in collaboration with the Oxford University Press marketing team. The @ProtEngDesSel Twitter feed has recently been established to announce newly published papers and publicize our other activities, such as our Webinar Series. The option to provide a Graphical Abstract has been introduced, and I would encourage authors to take advantage of the additional promotional opportunities this provides, not least the possibility of featuring on the cover of PEDS in the future. Moving forward, we will also be highlighting papers as ‘Editor’s Choice’ selected by the Editorial Board for their significance to the field, and made freely available for maximum dissemination. I will also be initiating an annual award for the best paper published in the journal, to be given to the junior scientist responsible for the main body of work. My hope is that this award will assist in the career development of the next generation of protein engineers. Recent developments in high-throughput screening and next-generation sequencing have increased the pace at which large mutational data sets are generated. Given the importance of such data sets in protein engineering and design research, in consultation with key members of the relevant scientific communities, PEDS aims to establish an article format that will facilitate more effective communication of these types of results to the broader community. PEDS will publish a recurring series of review and methodology articles from leading experts, all of which will be freely available upon publication. The first collection will be comprised of short reviews on topical themes and is expected online in 2021. PEDS is a community-run journal that was founded by and for research scientists; anyone with suggestions on how we can make the journal the best it can be for our community is encouraged to get in touch. I very much look forward to hearing from you and anticipate reading plenty of exciting new protein engineering and design results in the journal in the years to come!
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 | 0,009 | 0,012 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,009 | 0,013 |
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 ».