Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a journal that reports advances in atomic, molecular and optical science (AMO), Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics ( J. Phys. B ) provides the AMO research community with three unique fora: topical reviews, tutorials and special issues. Developed under the leadership of editor Jan Michael Rost and his Editorial Board, these sections have cemented J. Phys. B 's reputation as a major journal showcasing the AMO community's advances. For me, an AMO scientist, it is therefore a special pleasure to be entrusted with continuing the tradition of excellence established by Jan Michael and the Editorial Board. I intend to build on this foundation by ensuring that the journal makes full use of these tools. Topical reviews: a unique focus When J. Phys. B becomes the first journal you turn to for initial reviews about important emerging areas in your field, we as an Editorial Board will have succeeded. To us, a topical review is different from a traditional review—a topical review focuses on emerging sub-fields of AMO physics. Its function is to alert and educate our readers about emerging opportunities. Topical reviews can also serve a closely related function for readers: keeping us up-to-date with critical technologies that lie slightly outside our own fields, such as advances in free-electron lasers science, (which will surely affect our field). Our overall goal is to make your research more productive because of the topical reviews you read within the journal. Tutorials J. Phys. B tutorials are aimed at graduate students or researchers venturing into a new field. Just as in my own research group I encourage all graduate students to write their theses in a way that will be useful to both future graduate students and the larger community beyond my group, J. Phys. B has designed tutorials to fill this function on the journal scale. Thus, tutorial authors are able to write in greater depth than can be included in a paper in nature, science or in the regular pages of J. Phys. B . Often a professor and student will collaborate on a tutorial while the student is writing a thesis. Our challenge as an Editorial Board is to identify the most important topics and most talented authors for such tutorials. Special issues Authors find it uniquely appealing to publish in J. Phys. B special issues, because these issues feature a concentration of papers on a selected topic. This concentration draws attention to all papers in the special issue. However, a special issue never takes over the entire publication, and all J. Phys. B special issue articles are reviewed in the usual way. As an Editorial Board, we will look for emerging sub-fields which have reached a level of maturity that would benefit from a special issue. Suggestions from you, our colleagues As an AMO scientist, I myself am widely informed about my own speciality of attosecond science, but not necessarily up-to-date on emerging advances in other AMO specialities. The Editorial Board and I need your suggestions for special issues, for topical reviews, for tutorials, and for how we can improve J. Phys. B further still. So please email your suggestions, backed by your explanation of why the sub-field is important. Although we cannot guarantee that we will accept all suggestions, I do promise that the Editorial Board will seriously consider every one of them. J. Phys. B 's publication process Producing a regular publication is an arduous process. It is the staff who carry out the day-to-day processes on which reliable production depends. They see that your paper is reviewed and published quickly. They are dedicated to serving your specialized needs. The editor's and the Board's role is to serve as a conduit: we help the staff understand the specialized needs of the science community and help the science community to understand the specialized nature of publishing. Looking ahead to my five years as editor, I hope they will be as successful as those of my predecessor, Jan Michael Rost. Jan Michael has steered the journal through the many changes that have occurred in scientific publishing in recent years. While every scientific journal searches for new ways to better-serve its readers, J. Phys. B has developed unique services that can make us scientists more productive. That is the highest accolade I can possibly give to Jan Michael as I begin to build on the strong foundation that he has put in place.
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 | 0.013 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.064 | 0.080 |
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".