MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Scholarly publishing depends on peer reviewers

2018· article· en· W2796260596 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenuePharmacy Practice · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
Topicscientometrics and bibliometrics research
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesUniversity of California, DavisUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUniversidade de CoimbraKerman University of Medical SciencesUniversiti Sains MalaysiaUniversity of WarwickPurdue UniversityNorth Carolina State UniversityJordan University of Science and TechnologyNorthShore University HealthSystemUniversity of MinnesotaChapman UniversityUniversity of PittsburghUniversitetet i TromsøUniversity of Technology SydneyNorth Dakota State UniversityRMIT UniversityKaiser Permanente
KeywordsPublishingEconomic shortagePeer reviewOpen peer reviewPublic relationsPsychologyComputer sciencePolitical scienceLawPlant biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The peer-review crisis is posing a risk to the scholarly peer-reviewed journal system. Journals have to ask many potential peer reviewers to obtain a minimum acceptable number of peers accepting reviewing a manuscript. Several solutions have been suggested to overcome this shortage. From reimbursing for the job, to eliminating pre-publication reviews, one cannot predict which is more dangerous for the future of scholarly publishing. And, why not acknowledging their contribution to the final version of the article published? PubMed created two categories of contributors: authors [AU] and collaborators [IR]. Why not a third category for the peer-reviewer?

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.116
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.740
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.921
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1160.740
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0280.144
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0530.045
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.013

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.

Opus teacher head0.820
GPT teacher head0.684
Teacher spread0.136 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePharmacy PracticeSame topicscientometrics and bibliometrics researchFrench-language works237,207