The Research Contributions of Editorial Board Members in Library and Information Science
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
Research experience is widely regarded as an important qualification for editorial board members. Not all board members are active scholars, however. This study evaluates the research contributions of individuals who served on the boards of thirty library and information science journals based on their publications in those same thirty journals from 2007 to 2012. Data for all authors—board members and others—allow for comparative analysis. Overall, 52 per cent of the 1,079 board members authored or co-authored at least one article in the thirty journals during the study period. The percentage varies considerably among journals, however, and it is substantially lower (35 per cent) among the ten practice-oriented journals. Moreover, the board members of the practice-oriented journals tend to write fewer articles than the authors who typically contribute to those journals. Among the thirty journals, citation impact is strongly correlated with board members' research productivity.
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 | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.436 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it