Revistas brasileiras publicadoras de artigos científicos em cirurgia. III: análise das instruções aos autores baseada na estrutura dos requisitos de Vancouver
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To analyze the instructions for authors of Brazilian scientific journals in the surgery field, in order to describe the present situation, as well to make recommendations for editors and authors. METHODS: Instruction for authors of 20 journals were analyzed and classified following Vancouver requirements. Instructions were taken from SciELO, from the journals homepage, or from the last printed issue available in BIREMEs collection. Results were descriptively analyzed, considering the frequency of each variable. RESULTS: 75% of the journals recommended ICMJE Uniform Requirements, although not always the newest version was indicated; 90% of the journals mentioned ethical research principles, 80% the peer-review process and 70% the conflict of interests and the author rights transfer agreement. Foreign languages frequently accepted were English (80%) and Spanish (30%). All journals publish original papers, followed by reviews (90%), case reports (80%), letters to the editor (70%), and clinical updates or continuing education (55%). The nomenclature for the sections varied among journals. CONCLUSION: Even though publishing freedom and independence of each publisher must be respected, there are internationally accepted criteria that must be observed. The current trends, towards the prioritization of open access electronic journals, will lead to important changes in the process of publishing scientific journals.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.109 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.040 | 0.034 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".