Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the little more than two years that I have been the ABT editor, there has been an increase in manuscripts submitted by authors from countries other than the United States. I view this as good news because it means our journal is becoming more international. During this time manuscripts have been received from authors in 19 different countries. Among the countries represented are Argentina, Canada, Chili, China, Croatia, England, Germany, Greece, India, Iran, Israel, Japan, Mexico, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Taiwan, Turkey, and Venezuela. Some countries, such as China, Taiwan, Canada, Spain, and South Africa, have been represented by multiple submissions, some from different authors. Furthermore, the acceptance rate of 35% for foreign authors is just slightly below that for U.S. authors in spite of some challenges to authors whose first language is not English.I also sense an increase in the submission rate over the past three years. From February 2009 through May 2011, we received 311 manuscripts. The ABT only publishes nine issues per year. The November and December is combined and there are no issues in June and July. We can normally publish only six to eight articles per issue, depending on their length. This leaves some room for items such as the letter from the president, editorials, our five popular ABT department entries (Biology Today, Book Reviews, Classroom Media Reviews, Classroom Materials Reviews, and Sacred Bovines), and the necessary advertising and promotions that financially support the ABT. So, you can see why the overall acceptance rate will run less than 40%.I will continue to support and promote foreign submissions to the ABT because I believe that being increasingly international will also increase the prestige of the ABT and, thus, increase its quality and usefulness worldwide. This should also reflect positively on increased NABT membership. I would even like to have manuscripts published both in English and Spanish (our most frequent other language) in some future issues. Please encourage this trend of increased internationalization of the ABT!
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".