MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012193444 · doi:10.4103/1673-5374.125320

Letter from Editors-in-Chief

2014· letter· en· W2012193444 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kwok‐Fai So, Xiao‐Ming Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueNeural Regeneration Research · 2014
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNoticeLibrary scienceComputer scienceWorld Wide WebEditorial boardPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dear readers and contributors, Welcome to the first issue of Neural Regeneration Research (NRR) in 2014. Over the past few years, NRR has dedicated its focus to the rapidly growing field of neural regeneration. The editorial team has made significant contributions to soliciting higher quality papers and many efforts, described below, have been or will be made to make NRR one of the leading journals in the field of neural regeneration. We are very pleased to announce that NRR is now indexed in PubMed and PubMed Central (PMC) (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nlmcatalog/101316351).This means that full-text articles will not only be available in the journal's website (http://www.nrronline.org/), but also in PMC (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/). Readers are able to search NRR's articles in PubMed. We are also working on the index of articles which are available as Advance Online Publications (AOP) with NRR in PubMed. The benefit of AOP is that high-quality peer-reviewed research articles can be searched, downloaded, and cited a few months ahead of print. The online manuscript submission and review system is being transitioned to Editorial Manager, which is the most widely used editorial system in the world. Our contributors and reviewers are themselves already using Editorial Manager without difficulty. Also the manuscript management system allows better interactions between editors, authors and reviewers. In addition, readers may immediately notice major changesto the journal including the cover and article format in this first issue of 2014. Figures are now a prominent part of the Journal, both online and in print. Although we previously published color images in the printed journal issues, beginning with this issue, we will publish color images with even higher resolutions and better quality. High quality images often make a significant impact and convey important information to the readers, and we will make every effort to provide readers with better quality images. We encourage the contributors of NRR to include high quality images in their future manuscript submissions. In April 2013, NRR joined an e-journal co-publishing partnership with MedKnow Publications, one of the biggest medical-related publishers that publish peer-reviewed, open- access, academic journals. Based on Google Statistics, which provides an analysis of the journal's website visitors and details their visits from November 2013 to January 2014, there have been 14,066 pageviews in the last 3 months and 70% of the visitors were new to the site (http://www.nrronline.org/) and accessed the site for the first time. Most online readers are from China, United States, India, United Kingdom, South Korea, Iran, Turkey, Canada, Japan, and Germany. Additionally, iPad and iPhones are being used more frequently to access journal contents. Looking at the growing trend towards such applications, it is feasible to launch our journal on iPad in early 2014. In the coming year, we would like to publish more review papers and perspectives on special topics from established scientists who are leaders in their respective fields. We hope that, through this approach, the Journal will be able to provide readers with the most updated information on recent advances in science in different regeneration-related research disciplines. Scientists who are interested in serving as a Guest Editor for a special issue with 3–5 papers on a special topic are encouraged to submit their proposals to NRR. The journal will also start publishing Short Research Announcementsby scientists who wish to announce research results of a future publication in a leading journal, which could take months to be published. The Announcements will appear within 1 month of acceptance and will also be available online within 1 month. We look forward to receiving your submissions with this new mechanism and working with you closely to facilitate a rapid publication. The Journal will also strive to achieve rapid publication of all accepted manuscripts. All manuscripts will receive a peer-review decision within 4 weeks after submission and, when accepted, the manuscripts will be published online within 3–4 weeks from acceptance. If authors have a specific publication deadline in mind, please contact our editorial office for a pre-submission inquiry. This will enable us to arrange a faster peer review and an even smoother production process. If your manuscript has recently been rejected by one of the top journals in neuroscience due to lack of space, we could expedite a thorough review directly by our editorial board members within 2 weeks, and a rapid publication after its acceptance. Continuing from the big success of the 3rd International Neural Regeneration Symposium(INRS2013) with over 700 participants from 180 research institutions of 9 countries, we announce the 4th International Neural Regeneration Symposium (INRS2014) in conjunction with the 9th Asia Pacific Symposium on Neural Regeneration (APSNR) and the 6th International Spinal Cord Injury Treatments and Trials Symposium (ISCITT) to be held in Nanjing, China in September 2014. The final dates and latest program will be posted soon on the symposium website (http://www.inrs-nrr.org/). We look forward to your active participation of the symposium and hope that you will find the symposium to be attractive and of high scientific value. As always, our vision for NRR continues to be publishing the very best articles and reviews in neural regeneration. Additionally, we encourage the submission of short papers that report cutting-edge research in neural regeneration. As Editors-in-Chief, we are happy to hear from you concerning articles, perspectives, highlights, field reports, and reviews submitted to NRR. Finally, once again, we want to thank all the readers, contributors, reviewers, and editorial board members for your invaluable support and contributions to NRR. We wish you all a Happy, Healthy, and Prosperous New Year. Sincerely,

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.221
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.177
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeural Regeneration ResearchSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207