An international peer‐review system for a Chinese scientific journal
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The characteristics and requirements of a world‐class journal were considered in establishing a rigid peer‐review system for scientific papers submitted for publication in the English‐language Journal of Zhejiang University SCIENCE [JZU(S)] from 2002 onward. Four hundred and thirty‐five contributions were received between January and December 2002, and these were sent for pre‐publication review to appropriate leading scientists in the USA, the UK, Ireland, France, Canada, Australia, Austria, Germany, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Finland, Poland, Portugal, Italy, Israel, Spain, Greece, Belgium, Sweden, Switzerland, Japan, Singapore, Slovakia, India, Greece, the Czech Republic, Mexico, Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan. Our experience showed that such an international peer‐review system plays an important part in ensuring the high quality of a journal's contents and in helping it achieve an international reputation.
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.
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 | 0.152 | 0.398 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.029 | 0.093 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.100 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it