MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019123976 · doi:10.3138/w706-5884-kg84-j282

The Importance of Resubmitting Rejected Papers

2007· article· en· W2019123976 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Stephen K. Donovan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Scholarly Publishing · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
Topicscientometrics and bibliometrics research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLuckField (mathematics)Computer scienceOperations researchEpistemologyPhilosophyEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

If your research paper is rejected for publication by a peer-reviewed journal, what do you do next? Some editors would suggest that it should not be sent to another journal, yet there are contributors who would just put a ‘failed’ paper straight back in the mail to another journal and trust to luck. I argue that rejection should be a time for reassessment, when the input of the editor(s) and reviewers(s), all experts in their field, should be considered and acted upon as necessary. The revitalized and improved contribution can then be sent to a new journal with confidence.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.190
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.710
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1900.710
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0210.012
Open science0.0070.005
Research integrity0.0110.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.009

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 head0.414
GPT teacher head0.520
Teacher spread0.106 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainEvaluation
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

Citations15
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Scholarly PublishingSame topicscientometrics and bibliometrics researchFrench-language works237,207