Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Heart Rhythm Case Reports is now completing its eighth year in publication. As one of four official journals of the Heart Rhythm Society, this open-access journal continues to endorse the aims of publishing high-quality case reports that improve the care of patients with heart rhythm disorders by advancing research, education, and procedural skill and efficacy. The journal underwent several changes this year. The website has been redesigned to improve the presentation, visibility, and site navigation. The case series “A Case for Education” continued, with authors invited over social media channels to augment opportunities for authors who may not be reached by traditional methods. We also have started to invite authors to provide editorial commentary on accepted case reports that have unique educational, therapeutic, and management insights. And, we have invited Dr Mohita Singh, an electrophysiology fellow at the University of Texas Southwestern, to become our first Fellows-in-Training Section Editor, a 2-year position. Dr Singh will provide oversight and leadership of a new page specifically designed for fellows that will include articles on issues relevant to training, career pathways, navigating the evolving field of electrophysiology, and other education topics. The journal remains very healthy. Since inception we have made a final disposition on approximately 2800 manuscripts. The overall acceptance rate is 43% and has remained consistent year to year. With a few weeks to go in 2021 as I write this report, we have received over 400 manuscripts, making this the second-highest annual total to date. The top contributing countries include, in order: United States, Japan, China, United Kingdom, Canada, Spain, Belgium, Brazil, France, and Italy. This year we said farewell to Associate Editor Dr Daniel Morin, who has served in multiple capacities with the journal since the launch in 2014. His guidance and direction have been critical to journal promotion and website presentation, and for the review and editorial processing of hundreds of manuscripts in general electrophysiology. Dr Morin will begin a new opportunity with another electrophysiology journal and his talents will magnify their efforts for growth and improvement. I am grateful for the other Associate Editors similarly. I rely heavily on their reviews and advice on manuscripts in their respective areas of specialty within electrophysiology. These editors are Dr Jonathan Dukes, Dr Rakesh Gopinathannair, Dr Christina Miyake, and Dr Yasuo Okumura. All our work would not be possible without a fantastic editorial staff and the generous support of the Heart Rhythm Society. The journal continues to enjoy a rich international readership and broad social media impact. The Twitter account has grown from approximately 7366 followers last year to now 10,056 by December 2021. A corresponding Facebook page is used to reach a different audience and to allow dynamic conversations that may require longer commentary than allowed by Twitter; it grew significantly this year from just a few hundred followers to 2030 followers. We will continue to look at novel additional methods to share our articles and disseminate our shared learning and understanding of heart rhythm disorders broadly. As I conclude, I remain very grateful for the opportunity to serve all of you as Editor-in-Chief of Heart Rhythm Case Reports. It is a great pleasure for me to learn from your insight into heart rhythm disease management, and the interesting and innovative approaches to improve treatments and outcomes. I am humbled when I consider the hours of service rendered by those that are willing to review manuscripts. I recognize that you all have multiple demands for your time and that when you accept our invitations to review it represents a sacrifice you are making for the betterment of our authors, the education product, and the journal. We rely on these reviews to improve the case reports and their messages. As we often have many early-career or new authors submitting these case reports, your reviews are often one of their first experiences with the scientific process and peer review. I believe that the review process aids in the educational experience for all authors and helps us as we consider diverse viewpoints. As always, I remain hopeful that our product will continue to meet your expectations and needs and, if not, I welcome your suggestions (e-mail: [email protected] ) for improvement and look forward to another year of learning from each of you.
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 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 ».