Bibliographic record
Abstract
The greatest achievement of 2008 was the increase of the impact factor for Multiple Sclerosis, moving from 2.77 to 3.26, and placing it at number 29 of 146 clinical neurology journals. This increase is based on the preceding 3 years, and given our improved performance over subsequent years, there is every expectation that now that the climb has started we will see it continue. Fingers crossed! 2008 also saw a steady increase in quantity and, more importantly, quality of submissions. There has also been an impressive increase in on-line downloads which reached a total of 68,375 in 2007, reflecting a 225% increase on the previous year. We have been pleased to accept a number of important meeting reports and consensus papers which we feel are of great interest to our readership and also underline the journal’s position as the preeminent journal in the field of multiple sclerosis. We have also had an increasing number of editorials on some of our more controversial papers – a trend which we hope to see continue. Despite the increase in the number of pages available in 2008, the responsiveness of the journal has not improved to a major degree – at least in terms of papers appearing in print. However, there has been a major advance in timely publishing of papers on-line and authors can now anticipate seeing their paper on-line (and therefore citable) within 2 months of acceptance. 2009 will also see us moving to 12 issues of 124 pages each, which represents a further 30% increase. The challenge will be to improve responsiveness, and at the same time increase the quality of the journal. There was also an increase in the number of requests for supplements last year. This is welcome provided we can be confident of their quality, objectivity, and interest to our readers. We have drafted guidance to assist in the selection of supplements which also advocates the involvement of a member of the editorial board in the review process. The 2008 editorial board meeting in Montreal was very well attended (27 of the 45 members) and extremely lively. The board members made a number of suggestions relating to improvements in the journal such as more commentaries, higher quality illustrations, and easier access to material for teaching purposes. The possibility of offering CME (Continuing Medical Education) credits to reviewers was also raised. We intend to pursue all of these suggestions vigorously. It is very encouraging to have had such a successful year. We are conscious that the more successful we become the more papers we will attract. To enhance the efficiency of the review process while containing the increasing load for our reviewers, we will continue to use an effective triage system, involving the opinion of our editorial board members, whose expertise covers a very wide range of subjects. We are, as always immensely grateful to the increasing number of people that carry out such timely and constructive reviews. Finally, we wish all our readers, whether of hardcopy or on-line, a prosperous and productive 2009.
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 | 0.007 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.033 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.059 | 0.039 |
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".