Editors' report for 2014, <scp>N</scp>ovember 2014
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During 2014 BJCP published 87 reviews (seven of which were meta-analyses and 17 systematic reviews, 15 were commissioned and 20 uncommissioned, 11 were themed), one short communication, one viewpoint, one set of abstracts, one historical perspective, 132 research articles, five papers in the Methods in Pharmacology series, two book reviews, five commentaries, four editorials and 34 letters. There were two themed issues: Addiction in the February issue (77:2), and Pharmacogenomics and Pharmacoepigenetics in the April issue (77:4) We received 553 submissions from 1 January 2014 to 31 October 2014 (exactly the same number, 553, for that time frame in 2013), of which 393 were original papers. Of the original articles, 15% have been accepted, with the remainder rejected, pending a decision or awaiting a revision. We have seen a stable rate of submissions of reviews and meta-analyses, with 75 to date, as compared with 81 in 2013. Overall submissions for the period came from 57 countries (63 countries in 2013 and 52 in 2012): United Kingdom (79, 14% of total), USA (41, 7%), China (61, 11%), France (38, 6.8%), the Netherlands (33, 5.9%), Australia (30, 5.4%), Italy (30, 5.4%), India (24, 4.3%), Japan (18, 3.2%), Germany (17, 3%), Spain (17, 3%), Canada (15, 2.7%), Korea (14, 2.5%), Denmark (13, 2.3%), Switzerland (12, 2.1%), Sweden (9, 1.6%) and 41 other countries (<10 submissions each). Papers were submitted and handled electronically via the ScholarOne website. These results are encouraging, especially in the categories ‘from submission to final acceptance’, which has decreased by 6 days and ‘from receipt at the Publishers to issue publication’, which has decreased by 15 days. This reflects the commitment by Editors, Executive Editors, Referees and our Publishing Team. The impact factor is 3.688, a rise of 3.1% compared with the previous year (impact factor 3.58). BJCP is ranked 50th out of 254 journals in Pharmacology and Pharmacy, a rise of three positions. Editors Ton de Boer (Utrecht) joined as European Editor. Sarah Ross joined as Education Editor. Annette Gilchrist continues her term as Senior Online Editor for both BJCP and BJP. Jim Ritter completes his term as Editor-in-Chief in December 2014. Executive Editorial Board Dr Groeneveld, Dr Jennifer Martin, Dr Nicholas Moore and Dr Arne Ring joined the executive editorial board. We would like to express our appreciation for the dedication and hard work from Dr Andrea Malizia, Dr Simon Day, Dr Robert Bies and Dr Andrew McLachlan, who have ended their terms. Ton De Boer has moved to a Senior Editor position. International Editors Dr William Haynes and Dr Ross Feldman joined the International Editorial Board. We are grateful to Professor Albert Frauman who concludes his term at the end of December 2014. The Editors thank all Board Members, both Executive Editors and International Editors, for their commitment and enthusiasm over the past year. The management board continues to have monthly teleconferences which have helped to streamline the journal processes and to deal with appeals in a fair and structured manner. We thank all the publishing staff at Wiley including Lisa Deakin (Senior Journal Publishing Manager), Annette Butler (Editorial Assistant), Elizabeth Spicer (Production Editor) and Harpreet Michhiana (Marketing Manager) for their unwavering and enthusiastic support, overseen with calm efficiency by our Society Relationship Consultant, Elizabeth Whelan.
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 | 0.019 | 0.104 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.157 | 0.105 |
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".