A One‐Year‐Old Baby… into the Year of the Dragon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A year has now passed since the launch of Pulmonary Circulation, a journal dedicated to the clinical and basic science of the pulmonary vasculature. The birth of any new journal is a fragile affair, and whether it truly succeeds is judged by a number of factors. It remains to be seen where the journal finds its place when judged by the hard indices of impact factor and citations. This may take another year and four further issues, though we are quietly confident that the quality of reviews and original articles we have published will be reflected in those figures. Another important measure of success of a specialist journal is the reception it receives from the clinical and scientific community that willed it into being. This reception has been loud and clear: The journal is fulfilling its mission of providing a high-quality forum for some of the best ideas, authoritative reviews, and original observations in the field of pulmonary vascular disease. This will serve to accelerate the generation and analysis of knowledge, ultimately leading to a greater understanding of disease mechanisms and better treatments for patients. But still the one-year-old journal is only an infant growing to the toddler stage. It demands constant attention and nurturing. A major milestone over the past year was the indexing of our journal on PubMed after only two issues, an extraordinary achievement. This has projected us from relative obscurity to immediate visibility. This visibility leads to more citations and wider interest in individual articles. As an Open Access journal, readers can instantly access articles and download them from the journal website free of charge. The website statistics are testimony to the popularity of many of our best articles with many of them achieving several hundreds of downloads to date. To sustain the growth of our journal through this second year of life we continue to need your help. We need your contributions, your time for peer-reviewing the articles submitted, and your advocacy. Each of us must champion this journal to see it through the next stage of development. For example, handing round your print copy to researchers and clinicians who may not be familiar with the journal will definitely increase the exposure. Similarly, suggesting the journal to colleagues as an ideal outlet for their research will also spread the message. You can also download images for presentations from our comprehensive review articles and cite the journal during your talks. Promote our mission: “Increasing the awareness and knowledge of pulmonary vascular diseases.” All of these things will help the one-year-old journal develop from crawling to walking. Within another year we will be running. This infant journal is very fortunate to have a huge family around the globe to help guide it to success. There are 177 editorial board members from 24 countries. Sixty percent of the editorial board are MDs, 32% PhDs, and 8% MD/PhDs; 13% are from “developing” countries; 23% are women. By way of a school report, in the 4 issues of Volume 1, we published 20 review articles (35%), 31 original research articles (53%), 5 case reports (9%), and 2 guideline/consensus articles (3%) (Fig. 1). The majority of manuscripts received to date are from contributors based in the USA (65%) and UK (13%). Other contributions have come from Germany, India, New Zealand, Canada, Denmark, France, China, Japan, the Netherlands, Pakistan, and Sweden. Statistics on Pulmonary Circulation in 2011 – (on left) articles published by number and type; and (on right) percentage of editorial board members who have MDs, PhDs, and MD/PhDs. Pulmonary Circulation was born in the Year of the Rabbit according to the Chinese zodiac calendar. The Rabbit symbolizes creativity, compassion, and sensitivity. In confrontational situations, Rabbits approach situations calmly and with consideration for the other party. But 2012 is the Year of the Dragon. Dragons symbolize dominance and ambition. Dragons are passionate, prefer to live by their own rules and are unafraid of challenges, and willing to take risks. In 2012 we intend to let our journal grow under the wing of the Dragon. Most importantly we want this fledgling journal to grow up healthy and strong, becoming an adult admired and respected by their peers, acting as a role model for others. This year we start anew with the first issue of our second volume. This issue contains state-of-the-art reviews and the full spectrum of basic science and clinical research. We are also starting to publish a new type of article of great practical value from the second year onward: A methodological paper describing detailed protocols. In this issue we begin this series with the protocols for identification of adult progenitor cells in the pulmonary vasculature. We in the editorial board are looking forward for your continuing help and support to make Pulmonary Circulation “the preferred medium of communication” for researchers and clinicians working in the field of pulmonary vascular disease.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.019 |
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".