MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Haemophilia: January 2008

2007· article· en· W2324664088 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christine Lee, Craig M. Kessler, Judith Barback

Bibliographic record

VenueHaemophilia · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemophilia Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHaemophiliaMedicineAudience measurementImpact factorSubject (documents)Ranking (information retrieval)Quality (philosophy)Haemophilia ALibrary sciencePediatricsPolitical scienceLawComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Haemophilia is entering the 14th year of publication. The success of the journal depends on the high quality of the articles submitted, the reviewers who are generous with their time and expertise, the active readership and the support of good publishers. The 2006 impact factor (IF) for Haemophilia is 3.073 and we believe this reflects the growing success of the journal (Fig 1). ISI Haemophilia 2006 impact factor calculation and trends. The most cited papers in 2004 and 2005 which contribute to the 2006 impact factor are shown in Table 1. There are 61 journals listed under the Haematology subject ranking and the aggregate IF for the subject is 5.099 with a median 2.405. The ranking and IF for Haemophilia, J.Thromb Haemost and Blood are respectively 22 (3.073), 9 (5.138) and 2 (10.37). However, the IF is not the only measure of quality; the increasing number of article downloads is another indication of the growing readership of the journal (Fig. 2). Haemophilia online article downloads. In 2006 Haemophilia articles were downloaded 115 564 times through Blackwell Synergy and other on-line hosts. The annual growth of on-line article downloads is illustrated in Fig. 2. The most frequently downloaded articles for 2006 are shown in Table 2. Haemophilia is the official journal of the World Federation of Haemophilia (WFH) and this is reflected in the truly international authorship. In 2006 contributing authors came from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, India, Iran, Israel, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Pakistan, Poland, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, UK and USA. The most frequent contributing countries were USA, UK, Italy and Canada. Since 1999 there has been an industry sponsored Japanese edition of Haemophilia– Akira Yoshioka, a member of our editorial board, selects papers which are translated into Japanese. In 2008 it is planned to start a Chinese edition edited by Renchi Yang, a new member of our editorial board. The circulation of Haemophilia continues to increase worldwide – in 2006 there were 5556 institutional subscriptions. Consortia libraries offering access to Haemophilia in 2006 included 2761 with paid access, but more importantly 2684 institutions in the developing world with free or low paid access to the journal through the initiatives of HINARI (World Health Organization’s Health Internetwork Access to Research Initiative) and INASP (International Network for the Availability of Scientific Publications). There are two editorial offices: the European office, based in the UK, has the editor Christine Lee supported by the editorial assistant Polly Sullivan and the US office has the editor Craig Kessler supported by the editorial assistant Lisa Jacobs. These offices are responsible for commissioning reviews and making decisions about submitted manuscripts. These editors are supported by Mike Makris as reviews editor and Louis Aledort as meeting report editor. Boon Hwee Chia, the production editor in Singapore, is responsible for the final proof editing and on-line submission. The journal is printed in Chennai, India. Judith Barback is the journal publishing manager, based at Wiley-Blackwell in Oxford, and she oversees the whole production. Tobias Trinkl is the business development manager responsible for supplements and is based in Berlin. All activity is managed through Manuscript Central (http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hae) on-line. The average number of weeks from submission to ‘on-line early’ and print publication respectively was 9 and 10 weeks in 2006. Since Haemophilia is only published bi-monthly, this represents timely publication. During 2007 Blackwell Publishing entered the merger with John Wiley & Sons to become Wiley-Blackwell. The merger will allow Blackwell to expand its marketing and sales reach, allowing Haemophilia to benefit from greater circulation and accessibility. The merger will also allow for an increase in investment in technology, which will give the opportunity to provide enhanced web services for readers and authors of Haemophilia over the coming years. In 2008 we look forward to publishing the abstracts and State of Art volume for the XXVIIIth meeting of WFH in Istanbul. We would like to thank our contributors, reviewers and readers for their continuing support and we look forward to a successful year of publishing for Haemophilia in 2008. Judith Barback is the Journal Publishing Manager for Haemophilia and is employed by Wiley-Blackwell.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.163
Threshold uncertainty score0.547

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1630.098

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHaemophiliaSame topicHemophilia Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207