Notice bibliographique
Résumé
At the last Canadian Journal of Surgery (CJS) Editorial Board meeting, discussion focused on the continuous improvement in service for authors and readers. As this editorial goes to press, it is timely to update readers on the discussion. We are pleased with a much improved editorial processing time with the implementation of Manuscript Central in mid-2008. Although this has dramatically reduced turnaround times and expedited communication, there remains considerable delay from the time of submission to publication. The Editorial Board shares this frustration with authors and readers but has taken some further steps to address this delay. The first recommendation is to increase the focus on original scientific contributions, which has brought our practice of accepting case notes under scrutiny. Case notes consume considerable time from the editorial staff, associate editors and coeditors. The board agreed that eliminating these reports will allow greater effort to be placed on the assessment of original research with rigorous scientific design of interest to CJS readers. This effort will likely result in tougher peer reviews and the acceptance of fewer articles for publication. The benefit to the journal is that its impact factor will likely increase and greater numbers of high-quality articles will be published in a more timely way. A second recommendation is to expand the expertise of the Editorial Board by identifying associate editors who will play a bigger role in the review process. These editors will represent the areas of expertise of the journal's sponsoring societies as well as epidemiology, health policy, basic science, surgical biology and diagnostic imaging. They will be invited to share, with the coeditors-in-chief, the responsibility of seeking reviewers and contributing to the review process. This should greatly enhance the quality of the peer review process and meet the high standards expected for subspecialty review. In addition, associate editors will raise novel topics of interest for discussion at board meetings. This will necessitate a growth of the membership of the Editorial Board. As before, the selection of associate editors for the board will be made in close consultation with the specialty societies who sponsor the journal. Finally, the journal will establish an Editorial Review Board of up to 100 people, each of whom will contribute up to 1 review monthly to the peer-review process. As such, we will increase our number of expert reviewers throughout the next year. This will further enhance the quality of our peer review process and provide timely results. In summary, as the CJS strives to fulfill its mission of contributing to the effective continuing medical education of Canadian surgical specialists, some fundamental changes in the selection of high-impact articles and in the composition and roles of the Editorial Board are ahead. It is our hope that this will enhance the journal's high impact with timely publication and better meet the high standards of quality demanded by our readers. Garth L. Warnock, MD Coeditor, Canadian Journal of Surgery
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 | 0,001 | 0,006 |
| 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) | 0,000 | 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 ».