Bibliographic record
Abstract
JAN exists to promote the art and the science of nursing. But as Editor-in-Chief I often ask myself if that mission is sufficient. At JAN we aim to publish the best available evidence from nursing scholars and practitioners across the globe and to provide an excellent service for our authors and readers. The number of submissions to JAN increases annually, our rejection rate concomitantly increases, more of our papers are published open access and we accommodate that by increasing the number of papers we publish, we are the highest cited nursing journal in the world (11,383 in 2013), our impact factor is 1·685 and the time taken to publish an accepted manuscript is under 6 weeks. In 2014 we have published articles from over 30 countries, including 24% from the UK, 14% from Australia, 11% from the USA, 7% from Canada and 7% from China, Taiwan and Hong Kong. I take a long haul flight almost monthly; last year I visited 11 countries and 13 the previous year. Wherever I go: Europe; North America; Middle East; Far East; South East Asia; and Australia, the reputation of JAN precedes me. I am very tempted to say ‘job done’ and to sit back and relax; in the words of Professor Brian Cox: ‘things can only get better’. But the job is not ‘done’ and it is not and has not been done by me alone. The vision of Dr James P Smith OBE, Founding Editor, for a high quality UK based academic nursing journal when few existed, was taken forward by subsequent editors Professor Jane Robinson OBE and Professor Alison Tierney CBE. Currently, I work with a ‘dream team’ of editors who work with remarkably little guidance from me (if truth be told!) and who permit me to do the work of promoting JAN internationally virtually without hindrance. As a team, along with our Wiley colleagues, we have a vision to put and keep JAN – in surfing terms – ‘ahead of the curve’. We have laid the foundations over the past three years by studying the publishing landscape and addressing those things we can do to extend the reach of JAN including an active Twitter site with over 8000 followers and a weblog – called JAN interactive – with over 50 entries and nearly 20,000 pageviews. As a team of editors we have started to publish editorials that address publishing issues such as internationalization (Hayter & Watson 2014); authorship (Hayter et al. 2014), and current controversial issues (Hayter 2013). In 2015, you can look forward to further editorials from the team on ‘salami slicing’ and predatory publishers. All our editorials are now free to access and download. In addition, we publish virtual issues where we gather a group of cognate articles with a covering editorial and, for a period, these are free to access and download. However, soon the ‘curve’ will be ahead of us and – to extend the surfing analogy – that means we lose momentum and slow down while our competitors head to the beach. The publishing landscape is labile and the profession we address could be considered to be in transition on a global scale. Some issues have been with us for around a decade such as the ageing nursing workforce and the effect of a highly migratory international workforce. Other issues, while not entirely new, including the extension of nursing practice and the preparation of the nursing workforce for war and natural disasters are increasing. Undoubtedly, there are issues over the horizon that will confront us without warning. The content of JAN will continue to reflect these issues but our vision is much wider; we wish to take part in shaping the international nursing landscape and to be recognized as an organ that leads, not only reflects, developments in the profession. Towards that end, we intend to be outspoken on some key issues and to emphasize that the pages of JAN, the JAN website and JAN interactive are forums for debate. We cannot do this by ourselves and we invite articles, editorials and JAN interactive entries on topics such as the non-qualified nursing workforce, working in global disaster areas, military nursing, palliative care for children and adults, financing health care and economic analysis of nursing, bariatric nursing, advanced practice, staffing ratios, the health and social care interface and ethical publishing practices. As Editor-in-Chief, I am very happy to discuss any ideas related to the above as are the editors and we can be contacted via the generic JAN email address, [email protected].
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".