Publication Practices of English Language Occupational Therapy Journals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine the characteristics and publication practices of English language occupational therapy journals. An adapted version of the Survey of Editors Regarding Publishing Practices was posted to the editors of English language occupational therapy journals (n = 14) in September 2001. The response rate was 92.9% (n = 13). Journals were published on average 4.77 times per year and comprised 89% text and 10% advertising. The preferred average length of manuscripts was 20 pages using American Psychological Association format. The average acceptance rate of unsolicited manuscripts was 46.6%. All the journals were peer-reviewed publications and 80% were research oriented. The most frequently cited reasons for rejection of manuscripts were methodology problems, poorly developed idea, poorly written and data interpretation problems. The professional focus of published manuscripts was on research and the clinical foci were on paediatrics, gerontology and physical medicine. The study concludes that there are a variety of publishing opportunities available to occupational therapists. It is essential that prospective authors consult the journal guidelines for authors, including the types of manuscript accepted.
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 | 0.016 | 0.142 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".