Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The past 3 years of 'living with Covid' have been challenging for scientific publishing, but as I write my year-end review for 2022, there are signs for optimism.Proceedings B has recovered well from this difficult period, with monthly submissions creeping upwards in the second half of 2022, and the journal is attracting high-quality submissions and continuing to diversify its content.Staff are now working regularly at 6-9 Carlton House Terrace, and last May we had the first 'in-person' editorial board meeting in London for 2 years.The impression I got at the meeting was that both editors and staff were relieved and enthusiastic to be interacting face-to-face without the constraints imposed by the more structured videoconference format we used in 2020 and 2021.A convivial night at a London pub and our traditional meal for staff and editors at a London restaurant provided ample opportunities for 'chin-wagging' and reinforced to us all that the social dimension of our work is critical for building relationships, brainstorming and developing new initiatives, several of which have taken shape during the year.From 1 January to 31 October 2022, we received 2092 submissions, a decrease of 184 in comparison with the same period in 2021.Because 2021 saw a decrease of 339 articles over the same time period, the 2022 results signal that submission levels are picking up and indeed there was a 4% rise in submission over the second half of the year.Of the 2022 submissions, the proportion rejected (74%) was identical to the previous year.So far, 475 articles have been accepted for publication and of these 232 are open access (OA), a significant increase over 2020 which is encouraging.Our target for OA content this year is 48.2% of published articles.The continuing upward trend is in line with our expectation to make the transition to fully OA for Proceedings B by 2026.Currently OA content is downloaded about three times more often than subscription content in the journal.Our times (in median days) to first decision (24), final decision (70) and from submission receipt to publication (98) have all increased somewhat, with our times to first and final decision below our targets.It has been notable this year that many editors, authors and reviewers have requested more time for their assigned tasks resulting in slower times overall.These delays may be partly associated with Covid, but also because of work overload as research and teaching activities expand again after the pandemic.The journal's impact factor rose in 2022 to 5.530 from 5.349 the preceding year.Proceedings B is currently ranked 19th out of 94 journals in the Journal Citation Reports category for 'Biology'.We receive submissions from numerous geographical regions, with the largest numbers coming from the USA (483), China (272), UK (239), Germany (120), Australia (109), Canada (101), Japan (83), France (75), Spain (51) and Sweden (42).These rankings are quite similar to last year, although China has now replaced the UK as the country with the second most submissions to the journal.We have continued efforts to attract submissions from under-represented regions and below I discuss our initiatives to increase diversity at Proceedings B which we hope will help to stimulate these submissions further.Review articles are published in most issues of Proceedings B and provide an outstanding forum for timely overviews of emerging areas and unresolved questions in biology.Reviews Editor Innes Cuthill has worked hard during the year to maintain a steady flow of submissions on diverse topics.
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 | 0,024 | 0,075 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,009 | 0,008 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,040 | 0,012 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,007 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,013 | 0,013 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,187 | 0,140 |
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 ».