Paying for bmj.com: Researchers will submit their articles elsewhere
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Editor—The move to charge for access to bmj.com is sad.1 While I was not naive enough to believe that the BMJ would stay free forever, I had hoped that it would at least set a trend by keeping its open access policy and adopting an author pays model. As a researcher I would be more than happy to spend money from my research grants to pay a fee for having an article processed by the BMJ. In closing the door and making the BMJ once again a subscription journal, the BMJ loses much of its appeal as the place for researchers to submit their high quality papers. At least for non-Britons, the high (international) visibility of articles published in the BMJ may have been the main motivation for submitting something there. Researchers are interested in global impact, not in impact on BMA members alone. The BMJ—dubbed the “Better Medical Journal” by Richard Smith—becomes the “British Medical Journal” once more.
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 | 0.010 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.049 | 0.038 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.109 | 0.159 |
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".