Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is over five years since I examined the international content of JCN in these pages (Watson 2003). Following some significant changes to JCN in terms of the editorial team, its frequency and its organisation, explained at the start of 2008 (Watson 2008), I thought it was time to review the extent to which JCN could still be considered an international journal. To do this I examined data on papers published from 2005–2008 inclusive; these data are presented in Table 1. I only used country of origin of the corresponding author; admittedly, this is imperfect as there are many international collaborations leading to papers – perhaps the subject of another editorial. The most important thing to report in the period is the steady increase in the number of papers published from 222 in 2005 to 347 in 2008; a 56% increase making us the largest academic nursing journal cited by the Thompson ISI system. This increase in publication of papers demonstrates the importance of JCN worldwide and also our capacity to process the papers which is a testament to the efficiency of the editorial and production teams. Incidentally, JCN continues to have a high impact factor; we were the first non-USA published nursing journal to have an impact factor greater than 1 and we are still in the top ten nursing journals in the world. Over the period examined, JCN published papers from 46 countries (treating China, Hong Kong and Taiwan as separate countries, but see below) covering all the continents of the world. However, the representation, as could be expected, is not evenly spread and there are some interesting trends to report. I have been selective in the countries that are shown in Table 1, therefore, the columns do not add up to 100%; some countries are not represented across all four years and some are only represented by very few papers. However, before examining trends, and for completeness, all of the countries from which papers originated are listed below: Australia; Austria; Barbados; Belgium; Brazil; Canada; China; Cyprus; Czech Republic; Denmark; Finland; France; Germany; Greece; Hong Kong; Iceland; India; Iran; Ireland; Israel; Italy; Japan; Jordan; Korea; Kuwait; Lithuania; Malta; Mexico; Netherlands; New Zealand; Norway; Philippines; Poland; Saudi Arabia; Singapore; Slovakia; South Africa; Spain; Sweden; Switzerland; Taiwan; Thailand; Turkey; UK; USA. The countries which consistently publish papers in double figure percentages are Australia, Sweden and the UK. That the UK should do so is hardly surprising; JCN is an international journal but it is published from the UK; however, there is a downward trend in the percentage of UK papers which is one indicator of the increasingly international nature of JCN. Australia has always been well represented in JCN and shows a slight upward trend, possibly the result of our representation in that region by an Assistant Editor and now one of our Editors (Debra Jackson) is based there. Sweden, likewise, along with other Scandinavian countries, has always been well represented and this is probably an outcome of the PhD system in these countries whereby doctoral candidates are required to publish several papers prior to submission of their thesis. Nevertheless, the trend for Sweden is downwards towards a single figure percentage. If there are downward percentage trends then it is logical that some must be increasing and this is most evident in Taiwan which has more than doubled its proportion of papers over the four years examined. It is interesting to note, if we consider Taiwan, Hong Kong and China together that, in 2008, 20% of our papers came from this region; almost as many as from the UK. I am especially pleased to see a steady increase in papers being published from the USA and this, like Australia, may be due to the presence of an Assistant Editor in North America. There are three main messages regarding JCN: JCN is increasingly international JCN published more papers in 2008 than any other nursing journal JCN is in the top ten nursing journals with an impact factor. The continuing success of JCN is only partly due to the editorial and production teams; the true reason for its success is those who write for it; those who review for it and those who read and cite the work we publish. We thank you and look forward to your continued support.
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 | 0.015 | 0.096 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.035 |
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".