MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964557241 · doi:10.1353/scp.2012.0004

The Importance of Encouraging Librarians to Publish in Peer-Reviewed Publications

2012· article· en· W1964557241 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alain R. Lamothe

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Scholarly Publishing · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPublishing and Scholarly Communication
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublishingApprehensionPublicationHostilityField (mathematics)Resistance (ecology)Advice (programming)PsychologyPublic relationsSociologyLibrary scienceComputer sciencePolitical scienceSocial psychologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Advancement in any field can only be achieved when participants distribute their ideas and experiences. What happens, however, when colleagues express uninterest, hesitation, apprehension, and, in some cases, outright hostility toward publishing? By relaying his publishing experiences as an academic librarian, both positive and negative, the author hopes to alleviate the fear, doubt, and resistance some feel toward publishing their results and ideas, particularly in peer-reviewed journals. Reasons to publish, as well as valuable suggestions and advice, are presented to the reader.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Scholarly communication, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.640
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0810.264
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.207 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Scholarly PublishingSame topicPublishing and Scholarly CommunicationFrench-language works237,207