MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4416059190 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwaf028

Reflections on the JCAG editorial fellowship

2025· editorial· en· W4416059190 sur OpenAlexaff
Sama Anvari

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2025
Typeeditorial
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueAnthropology: Ethics, History, Culture
Établissements canadiensMcMaster University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésnon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

For most Canadian medical trainees, the inner workings of an academic journal remain a “black box.” While most are familiar with conducting and publishing research, the process of moving a research article from submission to publication remains enigmatic. This presents a conundrum both for trainees who hope to one day pursue an academic career and for existing editorial board members who may not have a clear avenue to pass their knowledge and experience onto the next generation of clinicians. The Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (JCAG) editorial fellowship presents an answer to both problems, providing a Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) trainee with a glimpse into the world of academic publishing while also fostering mentorship and professional development. I had the privilege of serving as a JCAG Editorial Fellow in my final year of gastroenterology fellowship and found it to be an immensely valuable experience. In this role, I participated in meetings with the publisher, interacted with members of the editorial board, and reviewed manuscripts under the expert guidance of associate editors. Having submitted my fair share of manuscripts to various journals over the years, it was an eye-opening experience to be on the other side of the curtain and provide my feedback on submitted works. I also learned from reviewing the feedback given by other reviewers and comparing it to my own, gaining new perspectives on the nuances of study design and execution. Before the fellowship, I had had the opportunity to peer review a few research works; however, I was neither given a clear framework nor feedback on how to do so effectively. With the support of Dr Bessissow, my faculty mentor, I learned how to effectively critique an article while also providing authors with actionable suggestions. Throughout this process, I was thoroughly impressed by my fellow reviewers’ dedication to providing thoughtful, constructive feedback on submitted works. It was also a humbling and inspiring experience to glimpse some of the excellent research that is currently being performed by colleagues in gastroenterology. Finally, this role gave me a renewed appreciation for the process of research, as well as a better understanding of what elements make up a high-quality submission to an academic journal. I learned the importance of asking the question “Why does this research matter?,” an insight that will apply to my own manuscripts moving forward. As an aspiring academic clinician, I can say without a doubt that this experience served as an invaluable complement to my clinical training in gastroenterology. It made me both a better writer and scientist, while also highlighting many avenues for future growth. Beyond manuscript review, I also had the opportunity to learn more about the business of medical publishing and sit in on planning meetings with JCAG’s publisher. As physicians, we rarely have the opportunity to appreciate the strategic and operational realities of running a successful journal. During my time as a editorial fellow, JCAG received its first Impact Factor, a huge success and reflection of all the time and effort poured into the journal. It also faced challenges such as attracting reviewers and changes in publishing personnel, as well as a rising awareness of the use of AI in publishing. This experience highlighted that sharing high-quality research is just one of many facets of running an academic journal, a learning point that was highly valuable. As I move into an associate editor position at JCAG, I look forward to seeing how the face of publishing continues to change and how the responsibilities of the editorial board will evolve with it. Finally, my favourite aspect of the fellowship was the opportunity to participate in educational opportunities led by JCAG. Alongside JCAG’s Editor in Chief, Dr Eric Benchimol, I presented a workshop on peer-reviewing manuscripts to other gastroenterology fellows at the Gastroenterology Residents-in-Training course. I also had the privilege of serving as a panel member at the annual CDDW JCAG Symposium. Both experiences were fantastic learning opportunities to gain presentation skills, and I truly appreciate Dr Benchimol’s support and expertise. My original goal in applying for the JCAG Editorial Fellowship was to develop as a clinician, researcher, and educator. I can say without a doubt that the fellowship exceeded my expectations. The critical thinking and problem-solving skills I gained through this experience have shaped my approach to both critically appraising research and adapting it to clinical use. I look forward to putting them to use as I complete my fellowship in Advanced Inflammatory Bowel Disease and move into the next chapter of my career. I am truly grateful for the mentorship, guidance, and support of Dr Benchimol and Dr Bessissow, as well as for the opportunity to meet incredible gastroenterologists from across the country. I look forward to continuing at JCAG and seeing the continued evolution of the program, which will undoubtedly benefit future trainees for years to come. S.A. conceptualized, wrote, and edited the final article. None declared. The author (SA) is an Editorial Board Member at JCAG. The author has no conflicts of interest to disclose. There are no data associated with this editorial article.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,033
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,124
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Éditorial · Signal consensuel: Éditorial
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,073
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,173

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0330,124
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0040,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0050,004
Bibliométrie0,0070,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0120,009
Communication savante0,0200,007
Science ouverte0,0070,005
Intégrité de la recherche0,0730,052
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0140,007

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,022
Tête enseignante GPT0,338
Écart entre enseignants0,315 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreÉditorial

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentnon

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology→Même sujetAnthropology: Ethics, History, Culture→Travaux en français237 207→