Bibliographic record
Abstract
I am pleased to bring you this third issue of Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses and to record that the journal is now receiving a steady stream of quality original articles. Because we have received a number of enquiries from authors and potential authors regarding indexing by Medline and ISI, I would like to set out our policy in this regard. We view Medline, the leading global electronic database for biomedical journals, as an essential tool for boosting the readership and reputation of the journal in the scientific and medical community and we aim to apply for selection to be indexed in Medline at the earliest opportunity. The selection process is dependent on scope and coverage, quality of content, editorial work and production, readership audience, article type and geographical coverage.1 Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses is already beginning to demonstrate its proficiency in these areas, with its content ranging from review articles to original research to viewpoints and with its high level of article downloads. Capua and Alexander’s review article on avian influenza2 and Wood and Robertson’s review article on pandemic influenza vaccine preparation3 both appeared in the journal’s first issue and have each been downloaded well over 1000 times to date. With the continuation of high levels of readership and high-quality articles appearing in the journal, we are confident that Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses will be ready for selection review by Medline by the end of its first volume. This will include both prospective and retrospective issues of the journal. We also recognize that having an ‘impact factor’ is important to authors and readers alike. Thomson Scientific looks for similar criteria as Medline when selecting journals to include in their ISI Web of Science citation database of academic journals, but with more emphasis on the timeliness of publication. The process consists of evaluation of this and many other criteria such as adherence to editorial conventions, bibliographic information, citation history, the journal’s content and geographical diversity; if the journal fails to meet this criteria it will not be evaluated for another 2 years. Because of the strict policies in place,4 we do not intend to submit Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses to Thomson Scientific for evaluation until the end of 2008 when the journal has completed its second volume. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses has the mechanisms in place to achieve the editorial standards required by both groups. The journal is operating an effective electronic editorial office, Manuscript Central, with a strong editorial board seeing the papers through the peer review process. It also offers authors the chance to track their manuscript from submission to publication via the Author Services website and the opportunity to publish their article Open Access through the OnlineOpen option available. In addition, accepted articles are published OnlineEarly when possible to maximize exposure of the article prior to print publication. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses was given a strong presence at the recent Options for the Control of Influenza VI Conference, held from 17 to 23 June in Toronto, Canada. The response to the new journal was overwhelming with 259 people signing up for electronic table of contents alerts and just under 900 sample copies of the journal being taken by delegates. The journal also held its first editorial board meeting at the Options conference, the first opportunity for some of the leading people in the field to discuss the operation and strategic direction of the journal.
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 | 0.004 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.158 | 0.110 |
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".