Submissions, impact factor, reviewer's recommendations and geographical bias within the peer review system (1997–2002) Focus on Germany
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At the occasion of the Congress of the European Society of Cardiology in Berlin in 2002 we provide our readership with data on the impact factor of Cardiovascular Research and on the submission of manuscripts from different parts of the world. Fig. 1 shows the increase in submissions over the last years. The average of monthly submissions is well above 90 since the year 2000. In previous editorials we commented on the steady increase of submissions from Europe during the last decade [1–4]. Although there were slightly less submissions from Europe in 2000 compared with 1999, the year 2001 showed an all time high of 651 manuscripts (Fig. 2). From North America we received more manuscripts in 2001 than in the two preceding years. European submissions keep track with the general increase in submissions, leading to percentage of 55.3% in 2001. From North America (USA and Canada) we received 22.3% of the total number of manuscripts in 2001 and 10.9% came from Japan with the remaining 11.5% from the rest of the world. There is a trend to an increase of submissions from the rest of the world since 1997. With respect to individual countries most manuscripts in 2001 still were sent from the USA (16.7%), with Germany (13.2%) and the UK (11.2%), taking the second and third positions. Fig. 1 Total number of submissions per month during the years 1997–2001 and over the first 4 months of 2002 (2002/4). Fig. 2 Total number of submissions from Europe and North America from 1997 till 2001. Fig. 3 shows the official impact factor for Cardiovascular Research as communicated by the Institute for Scientific Information (solid line) and our own estimates (dashed line) since 1997. The last official impact factor was 3.783 (2000). We predict an impact factor of 4.60 … * Corresponding author. Tel.: +31-30-253-8923; fax: +31-30-2539-036
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 | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".