Which peer-reviewed journals publish the most on diabetes?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives – A list of the major peer-reviewed journals that publish on diabetes has not been published to date. This article briefly describes a project to compile a list of peer-reviewed English-language journals that publish the most on the topic of diabetes. Methods – We used the PubMed and CINAHL Plus databases to identify relevant articles published in English between 2003 and 2007. The number of citations for each journal was totalled, and the peer-reviewed status of the journals topping the list was determined. Results – We present a list of 100 peer-reviewed journals relevant to the topic of diabetes that is based on a larger list compiled for the Canadian Diabetes Educator Certification Board. The list includes a mix of general medicine journals and specialty journals. Discussion – A number of technical setbacks were overcome to determine which scholarly journals publish the most articles of potential interest to health practitioners with an interest in diabetes. This list can inform the current awareness activities of librarians and health practitioners alike, and may be useful from the perspective of collection development.
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 | 0.143 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.047 | 0.068 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.007 |
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".