The 10th year of the <i>Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle</i>
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle (JCSM) is an open access peer-reviewed journal that was founded 10 years ago in 2010. It is published by Wiley and in association with the non-profit organization ‘Society on Sarcopenia, Cachexia, and Wasting Disorders (SCWD1)’. Currently, the journal is published six times per year. JCSM attracts research from many different countries such as the USA, Germany, England, Italy, Netherlands, Australia, France, Canada, China, and Switzerland (top 10 countries where submissions originated from in 2019). Editor-in-chief is Prof. Stefan Anker (Berlin, Germany), Co-Editor-in-Chief is Prof. Stephan von Haehling (Göttingen, Germany), and Senior Consulting Editor is Prof. Andrew Coats (Rome, Italy). The editorial office is led by Monika Diek and Corinna Denecke, without whom this journal could not be published in time. This year JCSM has received 642 submissions so far (until October 2020). Certainly, it is only possible to evaluate such a large amount of submissions together with a great team of associate editors and reviewers. All these researchers work closely together with the goal to publish excellent new original papers, reviews, and editorials in the field of wasting diseases. JCSM's main areas of interest include the loss of body weight with regard to cachexia, malnourishment, anorexia, and lipolysis, as well as loss of muscle mass in sarcopenia and muscle wasting. Most original articles focus on preclinical investigations with regard to a better mechanistic understanding of the underlying pathophysiology; clinical investigations and biomarker assessment in patients with different wasting diseases; and epidemiological questions regarding the general burden of wasting diseases and its impact on other co-morbidities. Since cachexia and sarcopenia often occur in the setting of other chronic diseases, many different illnesses are thematized in the journal, including cancer, heart failure, and other cardiovascular diseases, chronic kidney disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, neurological diseases, and many others. There is also great interest in clinical studies, presenting the results of randomized, placebo controlled trials. Another field of interest includes age-related changes of body composition and its impact on patients' quality of life, endurance, morbidity, and mortality. JCSM targets the entire scientific community including biologists, pharmacologists, physicists, biochemists, physicians, clinicians, trialists, dieticians, nurses, students, and basic scientists. In 2019, Web of Science ranked JCSM number 2/51 in the section ‘Geriatrics & Gerontology’ and number 9/165 in the section ‘Medicine, General & Internal’ in 2019.2 One of the most important measures for any research journal is the Thomson Scientific journal impact. The 2019 Thomson Scientific journal impact factor for JCSM was calculated by counting all citations in 2019 to papers published in JCSM in 2017 (987 citations) and 2018 (699 citations) and dividing it by the number of citable items published in JCSM in 2017 (n = 82) and 2018 (n = 90). Hence, the 2019 Thomson Scientific journal impact factor for JCSM was 9.802 (1686/172). The number of total citations towards JCSM is increasing each year [2013: 516 citations, 2014: 713 citations (38%), 2015: 901 citations (26%), 2016: 1310 (+45%), 2017: 2207 citations (+68%), 2018: 2799 citations (+27%), 2019: 3553 citations (+27%)].2 Some papers in the past have been heavily cited: the most cited paper ever published in JCSM was an editorial by von Haehling et al.3 published in 2010 about ‘facts and numbers’ with regard to cachexia. So far this paper has already been cited 521 times. With regard to the top 10 cited papers ever published in JCSM (Table 1), these publications on average received 189 citations (as of September 2020), and they were all published between 2010 and 2016. Interestingly, these top 10 cited papers included a variation of different publications with four reviews, three editorials, and three original articles. Such diversity is also found when looking at the top 20 cited papers published in 2017–19 (Tables 2–4) with 11 reviews, 5 editorials, and 44 original articles—even though most citations are towards original articles. The three best cited papers from each year (2017–19; nine papers) mainly addressed the following research areas: cachexia and malnourishment (three papers); sarcopenia, muscle function and mass (seven papers); and adipose tissue (one paper). This demonstrates that nowadays not only research into the field of cachexia and malnourishment is of great interest to the scientific community but also research into sarcopenia, muscle function and mass. The authors of this manuscript certify that they comply with the ethical guidelines for authorship and publishing in the Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle.73 None declared.
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 | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 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 | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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 ».