Retracted: Composition of the editorial/advisory boards of major English‐language anesthesia/critical care journals
Post-publication record
Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Publications represent a central part of the research process. An analysis of who is responsible for acceptance of publications in major English-language anesthesia/critical care medicine journals was carried out. METHODS: All English-language journals listed in the SCI Journal Citation Reports 1997 under the subheadings Anesthesiology (n=18) and Emergency Medicine & Critical Care (n=16) were analysed with regard to the editorship and the membership of advisory boards listed in the 1998 issues of the journals. The two groups were analysed separately with regard to their country of origin. RESULTS: In the Anesthesiology section, 140 persons were listed as editors and 423 persons were identified as members of the advisory boards. Editors came from 14 different countries, with editors from the USA representing the majority (n=83; 59% of all editors, followed by the UK: n=24; 15% of all editors). Editors from other countries represent only a minority (n=33; 24% of all editors). The advisory boards came from 30 countries and were also dominated by the USA (n=220; 52% of all persons from the advisory boards). In the Emergency Medicine & Critical Care section 159 persons were listed as editors, of whom 119 originated from the USA (75% of all editors). Of the 835 persons listed in the advisory boards, 72% came from the USA, with 37 other countries sharing the remainder (second, UK: 8%; third, Canada: 2.5%). CONCLUSION: Most editors/editorial board members of important Anesthesiology, Emergency and Critical Care journals came from the USA. Other countries play a significantly less influential role even in journals which are characterised as 'International Journals'.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".