Secondary publication in the <i>Japan Journal of Nursing Science</i>
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The following excerpt about the secondary publication of articles has been obtained from the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, 2006): Certain types of articles, such as guidelines produced by governmental agencies and professional organizations, may need to reach the widest possible audience. In such instances, editors sometimes choose deliberately to publish material that is also being published in other journals, with the agreement of the authors and the editors of those other journals. Secondary publication for various other reasons, in the same or another language, especially in other countries, is justifiable, and can be beneficial, provided all of the following conditions are met. 1 The authors have received approval from the editors of both journals; the editor concerned with secondary publication must have a photocopy, reprint, or manuscript of the primary version. 2 The priority of the primary publication is respected by a publication interval of at least one week (unless specifically negotiated otherwise by both editors). 3 The paper for secondary publication is intended for a different group of readers; an abbreviated version could be sufficient. 4 The secondary version faithfully reflects the data and interpretations of the primary version. 5 The footnote on the title page of the secondary version informs readers, peers, and documenting agencies that the paper has been published in whole or in part and states the primary reference. A suitable footnote might read: “This article is based on a study first reported in the [title of journal, with full reference].” Permission for such secondary publication should be free of charge. 6 The title of the secondary publication should indicate that it is a secondary publication (complete republication, abridged republication, complete translation, or abridged translation) of a primary publication. Of note, the National Library of Medicine does not consider translations to be “republications”, and does not cite or index translations when the original article was published in a journal that is indexed in MEDLINE. The Japan Journal of Nursing Science (JJNS) Editorial Board and the Editorial Board of the Journal of Japan Academy of Nursing Science (JJANS) agreed in 2003 that JJNS will publish an English translation of papers that have been published in JJANS as a secondary publication. The paper must have been previously published in Japanese in JJANS and is suitable to be translated into English for the global audience as they are suggestive and the contribution to nursing is massive. Under the current situation, a secondary publication in principle is limited to the papers that won awards at the Japan Academy of Nursing Science (JANS) assembly held during the annual academic conference and the selection among the award papers rests with the JJNS editorial board. We have published the following award papers as a secondary publication so far: Effects of a flexed posture in the prone position with boundaries following endotracheal suction in very low birthweight infants. Yoshie KONDOH. JJNS, 1, 47–55. What moral requirements cause ethical dilemmas among nurse executives? Yumiko KATSUHARA. JJNS, 2, 57–65. Practical application and evaluation of a care model for informing and reassuring children undergoing medical examinations and/or procedures (part 2): Methods of relating and practical nursing techniques that best bring out the potential of children. Naomi MATSUMORI, Keiko NINOMIYA, Michiko EBINA, Noriko KATADA, Hitomi KATSUDA, Yukie KOSAKO, Shinobu SASAKI, Tomomi MATSUBAYASHI, Ayami NAKANO, Mayumi TSUTSUI, Naoko IIMURA, Rina EMOTO, Atsuko SUZUKI, Hiromi NARAGINO, Sayako TAKAHASHI, Namiko KISUGI, and Makiko HUKUCHI. JJNS, 3, 51–64. Competencies of genetic nursing practice in Japan; A comparison between basic and advanced Levels. Naoko ARIMORI, Satoko NAKAGOMI, Michiko MIZOGUCHI, Minako MORITA, Hiroto ANDO, Akiko MORI, Shigeko HORIUCHI and William L. HOLZEMER. JJNS, 4, 45–55.
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 | 0,007 | 0,033 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,010 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,159 | 0,123 |
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 ».