Access to PAIN Reports is now open: IASP inaugurates a new journal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We are excited to announce the launch of an open access journal from IASP called PAINReports. The new online journal joins PAIN in offering IASP members and the pain research community 2 publishing venues for the best basic and applied pain research. Although PAIN will continue to publish the foremost research articles in the field, PAIN Reports will offer readers worldwide free access to scientific articles and will expand the publishing terrain for developing countries. Why has IASP entered the field of open access publishing? In an era of easy and common internet access and ubiquitous communications technology, the scientific landscape continues to change before our eyes. Compared with just a few years ago, all of us communicate far more often, more rapidly, and more intensively with our peers around the globe. Communication, of course, is at the heart of our scientific enterprise; scientists and publishers, therefore, cannot refrain from adjusting to this new wave. Today, online scientific journals are proliferating in various fields, even as freedom of access to data remains somewhat elusive. Yet momentum clearly is on the side of open access publishing. The rationale is simple: taxpayer money is being used, justifiably, to finance research, but the results of this research generally are unavailable to the public. In most cases, only members of the scientific community have easy access to journal articles. The open access vision, accordingly, is that all data will be freely accessible to all stakeholders—the public, health policy experts, and the broader scientific community. Money allocated for research increasingly will include funds for open access publication as part of the expense of research. Several steps in this direction already are evident. PubMed Central, acting under the US Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, publishes full-text versions of government-funded research, making these articles publicly accessible. Similar steps have been taken in the United Kingdom, with UK PubMed Central, as well as in Europe and Canada. The Dutch government, currently pursuing a pan-European open science policy platform, aims to shift scientific publications toward open access venues.2 Many medical societies now have at least 1 open access journal, and nearly all scientific publishers support hybrid options, in which authors pay fees to publishers in return for their articles to be open access. (PAIN has this option for authors; as an open access journal, PAIN Reports charges authors publishing fees). For example, the Public Library of Science (PLOS) publishes a major line of open access journals. The most popular of these, PLoS One is one of the largest scientific journals, with approximately 30,000 articles published annually. Overall, there is evidence that the percentage of immediate open access articles has increased from 4.6% of all scientific articles in 2006 to 11% in 2011. If articles that are opened after a 1-year embargo and those published in hybrid journals are added, the numbers increase to 8.1% and 16.9%, respectively.1,3 As an online-only journal, PAIN Reports hopes to publish a high volume of articles rapidly and substantially complement PAIN in generating a multifaceted platform for clinical and research communications in pain research and management. The mission statement of PAIN Reports asserts our commitment: PAIN Reports is an official IASP publication. An open access multidisciplinary journal, PAIN Reports promotes a global, rapid, and readily accessible forum that advances clinical, applied, and basic research on pain. The online journal publishes full-length articles as well as brief reports, reviews, meta-analyses, meeting proceedings, and selected case reports. PAIN Reports gives special attention to submissions reporting the results of enterprising and high-risk research and pilot studies as well as locally developed clinical guidelines from scientists and clinicians in developing countries. It is with great excitement that we call for submissions from pain professionals in the clinical and research communities to support PAIN Reports. Conflict of interest statement The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.044 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".