Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Writing an editorial to reflect on the achievements and challenges of the Journal of Physical Activity and Health (JPAH) the past year is an interesting exercise.Upon receiving publication statistics from the publisher, I tried to understand why some things went just as planned, and others did not go that well.Our commitment of going global, for example, is a case of success.In 2022, 100 articles were published by authors from 54 different countries.In fact, we received submissions from 65 countries.This result represents a major shift in the dynamics of research in physical activity and health worldwide.In 2012, Pratt et al 1 identified a mismatch between where the studies on physical activity interventions have been done (mostly in the United States, Canada, Europe, and Australia) and where there is more potential for population-level effects that will affect global health (low-and middle-income countries).More recently, Ramírez Varela et al 2 found a more than 50-fold difference in publications per 100,000 inhabitants comparing high-and lowincome countries.JPAH is not only committed to closing this gap, but also to make sure neither science nor scientific publishing has borders. 3In 2022, 41.2% of the submissions JPAH received came from the Global South.We expanded our free access policy, so that more articles were made available to nonsubscribers, particularly those coming from the Global South, for a limited time.Another piece of good news relates to another rise in JPAH's Impact Factor, from 2.59 to 3.00.This continued increase in our Impact Factor is a result of the excellent leadership of Dr. Loretta DiPietro, our former Editor-in-Chief, and also reflects the quality of the science we publish.For example, an article published in 2021 on the synergies between physical activity and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals has been cited 67 times in such a short time frame. 4 From January 1 to December 31, 2022, JPAH received 676 article submissions, compared with 819 submissions in 2021.This 18% reduction in the number of submissions could be interpreted as bad news, but it had no impact on the proportion of desk rejections (70.9% in 2021 and 70.1% in 2022).In fact, out of the articles that made it to the peer-review stage, 56% ended up being accepted, compared with 52% in 2021.The combination of a slight reduction in submissions and a slight increase in acceptance rates arguably means that the awareness of JPAH's publishing priorities has increased among authors.Securing peer reviewers is JPAH's main challenge nowadays.The average time from submission to first decision, for the articles that made it to peer review, increased in 2022 to 55 days.The main reason is that our Senior Associate Editors are
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 | 0,019 | 0,070 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,009 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,014 | 0,008 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,008 | 0,009 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,044 | 0,019 |
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 ».