Editors' report, November 2013
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During 2013 (January to December issues) BJCP published, in electronic and no longer in paper-based form, Volumes 75 and 76 comprising: 4 Editors' views, 1 Editors' report, 1 Editors' pick, 1 Viewpoint, 1 Appreciation, 67 Reviews, 6 Systematic reviews, 148 Main papers, 6 Methods in Clinical Pharmacology, 6 Commentaries, 9 Book reviews, 4 Themed sections (Nutraceuticals, Biological Products, Cancer Therapeutics, Novel Therapeutic Approaches to Chronic Kidney Disease), 29 Letters to the Editor, 2 Proceedings/Abstracts with one as a Supplement and a Special Issue ‘Safeguarding Drug Treatment and Health Technology’ which comprised 1 editorial, 1 review and 8 original papers. Most of these data are similar to those in previous years, with the Senior Editorial and Reviews Boards continuing their focus on high quality invited reviews and being underpinned by original and main papers of increasingly high quality. We received (1 January to 31 October 2013) 553 submissions (about 10% fewer compared with the corresponding time period for 2012 – note that we have had increasing numbers of pre-submission enquiries), of which 385 (3% fewer than 2012) were original papers. Of the total submissions, 117 (or 21%) have been accepted and 299 (54%) rejected/withdrawn or relapsed with the remainder pending a decision or awaiting a revision. Of the total number of original papers submitted, 10% have been accepted, 66% rejected and the remaining 24% are pending a decision or awaiting a revision. For the full year in 2012, we accepted 28% of original papers and 76% of review articles. The figures for 2013 to date suggest that the acceptance rate for original papers may be lower, reflecting an increasing number of quality papers that need to be accommodated in the journal. Overall submissions to date came from 63 countries (52 in 2012, 49 in 2011 and 54 in 2010): United Kingdom (85, 16% of total), USA (62, 11%), China (62, 11%), The Netherlands (34, 6.1%), Italy (31, 5.6%), France (28, 5.1%), Germany (26, 4.7%), India (24, 4.3%), Spain (24, 4.3%), Australia (18, 3.3%), Japan (18, 3.3%), Korea (14, 2.5%), Switzerland (14, 2.5%) and 50 other countries with less than 10 submissions each. Compared with 2012, no new country made it into the list of 10 or more submissions whereas Denmark, Sweden and Canada dropped out. Substantial increases were noted from China and Italy. Papers were submitted and handled electronically via the ScholarOne website. The impact factor pleasingly increased from 2.96 to 3.58. BJCP is now ranked 53rd out of 261 journals in Pharmacology and Pharmacy, a rise of 21 positions from last year. Out of 8471 journals in the impact factor list, the BJCP is ranked 1073rd, a rise of 278 positions and placing it into the top 13% compared with the top 17% last year. Lionel Lewis, the inaugural American Senior Editor, completed his term and David Flockhart commenced mid-year for a 6 month overlap with Lionel followed by full responsibility from January 2014. The increasing number of high quality North American submissions is testament to Lionel's success. We welcome Brian Gennery and Ian Wong to the Executive Editorial Board. We express our appreciation for the hard work done for the journal to Edmund Lee who has reached the end of his term. We also welcome Elizabeth Phillips (Institute for Immunology & Infectious Diseases, Murdoch University, Australia) who joined the International Editorial Board. Annette Gilchrist (Chicago College of Pharmacy, Midwestern University, Illinois, USA) was appointed by the BPS from 1 July 2013 to the newly created position of Senior Online Editor for both BJCP and BJP. The Editors thank the members of the Executive, International and Reviews Boards for their contributions over the past year. Time has never been so much at a premium and the senior editors and the Society are mindful of and extremely grateful for the generosity of our editorial teams in this regard. The senior editors have monthly teleconferences with key persons from Wiley and the Society (Ruth Meyer). These teleconferences have greatly facilitated communication and helped streamline the journal processes and to deal with appeals in a fair, timely and structured manner. We thank all the publishing staff at Wiley including Stephen Montgomery (Managing Editor), Kim Harris (Editorial Assistant), Michael Willis (Editorial Services Manager), Amanda Hunter (Production Editor until May), Elizabeth Spicer (new Production Manager) and Phil Wright (Marketing) for their unwavering and enthusiastic support, led expertly and overseen with calm efficiency by our publisher, Elizabeth Whelan.
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 | 0.012 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.284 | 0.264 |
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".