Bibliographic record
Abstract
When I worked at the University of Ottawa, Canada in the 1970s, I often traveled back and forth to the United States to visit family and friends. From Ed Jackson's study of where academics in Canada and the United States choose to published their work, we learn that the crossing of the intellectual border may be a rarer experience.I must admit that on first reading Jackson's piece, I found little to get excited about. Despite the impressive database and meticulous analysis, I was not sure there was anything to be particularly bothered by, beyond the curiosity of looking at the data. But after a second reading, it seemed to me that Jackson's data and discussion raise or lead to some useful insights about whom we North Americans talk to and where we chose to publish.Jackson discusses several explanations for the relative country-bound article submission decisions of North American scholars, although he makes a case that Canadians are more likely to publish in journals in the United States, than the other way around. There are several reasons for this pattern, some of which Jackson discusses and others which it seems to me are worthy of explication.To me, the most important factor impacting publication preferences are beliefs about who has access to and reads each journal. How available is each journal in each country? If I am trying to achieve wide distribution of my thoughts and ideas, I want my manuscript to be in a journal that has the chance of reaching the widest possible readership. Thus, my manuscript submission decisions are based on who will be able to read the published piece: how available is each journal in Canada, the United States and elsewhere; and what journal databases abstract each journal. Several of the journals that Jackson reviewed are available and read in both the United States and Canada, but some more so than others. Some of the journals are included in journal databases that are regularly searched, others have less visibility.Interestingly, I suspect Jackson, a well-published Canadian academic, chose to submit his article to the Journal of Leisure Research (JLR), rather than one of the five other North American journals he reviewed, because JLR as the largest subscription base and is considered by many to be the most prestigious of the journals on his list. The journal also has an editor interested in provocative submissions that will engender discussion and attract commentaries. There might have been one other journal from the six he reviews that would have commanded near the same level of attention, but I suspect JLR was the best and wisest choice.Second, since all academics answer to an annual review process at their universities, reputation of the journal is also important. (Reputation is largely a subjective opinion. Please do not quote this as the justification for a flawed study of journal reputation!) Reputation is partly tied to potential readership, but is also related to the prestige of the articles published in a journal over time. I will initially send my manuscript to the most prestigious journal that publishes papers in the subject area of my manuscript. If the manuscript could be published in one of several journals, I would guess that a publication in JLR or Leisure Sciences (LS) would count more in the review process at many universities than one in the Journal of Applied Recreation Research (JARR). This may be a flawed assumption on the part of academic personnel committees, but I suspect one that guides many article submission decisions.Third, as noted, most academics want to send their manuscripts to the appropriate subject-matter journal (although during my 22 years of journal editing, it is also clear that some people count prestige as the more important criteria and submit their manuscript to the wrong journal). Thus, I would not choose Therapeutic Recreation Journal or Loisir et Societe for a manuscript dealing with evaluation of after-school program outcomes. …
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 | 0.031 | 0.193 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.054 | 0.033 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.048 | 0.032 |
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".