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 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)0.268
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.575
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics, Scholarly communication, Open science
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics, Scholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.307
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2680.575
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0280.118
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0710.042
Open science0.0060.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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