Developments in the field of allergy in 2012 through the eyes of <i>Clinical & Experimental Allergy</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2012, we received 683 submissions and published 20 editorials, 38 reviews, 11 letters and 128 original articles. This represents an acceptance rate for original papers in the range of 20%. About 30% of original papers were triaged not to go out to review, either because the editors did not feel they had sufficient priority for publication or because the topic did not feel right for the readers of the journal. We place great emphasis on obtaining sufficient high-quality reviews to make our decisions on publication fair and consistent. Inevitably, however, there is a degree of luck about what gets published and which papers miss out, and we are always happy to receive an appeal on our decisions either at the triage stage or after review. This gives us the opportunity to revisit the decision and revise it or explain in more detail to the authors the basis for the decision. Once again in 2012, we were delighted by the quality of the papers submitted and the breadth and depth of research into allergic disease that it revealed. The pattern of papers submitted was similar in previous years with considerable emphasis on all aspects of asthma and rhinitis. We were particularly pleased with our special issue on severe asthma. Elucidating mechanisms using either animal models or patients has always been a major theme of the journal, and the excellent work in these areas has been summarized by Harissios Vliagoftis with a particularly interesting section on early-life events guiding the development of allergic disease, which understandably continue to be a major theme of research. Magnus Wickman summarized the papers looking at the epidemiology of allergic disease including work from birth cohorts, which are an increasingly rich source of data on risk factors for allergic disease, and two papers on the epidemiology of anaphylaxis. Giovanni Passalacqua discussed the papers in the clinical allergy section of the journal, and Adriano Mari who runs the excellent Allergome website discussed the papers looking at allergens including characterization and the relative usefulness of allergen arrays versus single extracts in diagnosis and management.
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 | 0.026 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.010 |
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".