Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is an enormous privilege to write this editorial as the new Editor-In-Chief (EIC) of Plant and Cell Physiology (PCP). It has been 57 years since PCP was launched and it now holds the position of a quality international journal (top 10% in the Thomson Reuter’s ICI Plant Science category). Its reputation has been established through the efforts and collaborative work of former EICs and editorial teams, alongside the support of the Japanese Society of Plant Physiologists (JSPP), the patrons of PCP. My role as EIC has only just begun, and over the next 4 years I hope to build on these successes to enhance PCP’s growth and development with the collaboration of our outstanding editorial team which is guided and supported by our managing editor, Liliana Costa. In recent years, we began to expand our team of editors and advisory editors to include a wide range of scientists from all over the world. From 2016, David Jackson (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, USA) started his new role as Reviews Editor. We also welcomed 7 new editors to our team, Erich Grotewold (Ohio State University, USA), Rodrigo A. Gutierrez (Pontifical Catholic University of Chile, Chile), Takayuki Kohchi (Kyoto University, Japan), Rowan F. Sage (University of Toronto, Canada), Takashi Ueda (National Institute for Basic Biology, Okazaki, Japan), Masami Yokota-Hirai (RIKEN, Yokohama, Japan) and Hirofumi Yoshioka (Nagoya University, Japan). The entire team of handling editors now comprises 12 scientists from Japan and 13 overseas scientists from 10 countries, all with complementary expertise ranging from cell biology to biochemistry, systems biology, biotechnology and genomics. The full list of editors along with details of their expertise can be found on our website ( http://www.oxfordjournals.org/our_journals/pcp/editorial_board.html ). In addition, we have a 50-strong Advisory Editorial Board from over 24 countries and with wide-ranging scientific expertise to support our editors.
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 | 0.013 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.116 | 0.153 |
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".