Diez pasos básicos para escribir y publicar un artículo científico
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La elaboración de un manuscrito y su publicación en revistas indexadas, es la culminación de un proyecto de investigación, es la forma en que los investigadores comparten el nuevo conocimiento con sus pares y constituye el principal mecanismo de visibilidad personal e institucional, a nivel nacional e internacional. El presente ensayo tuvo como objetivo elaborar una guía básica de cómo preparar un manuscrito y brindar elementos prácticos para lograr su publicación. Se describen los 10 pasos, que señalan el orden en que deben abordarse las secciónes de un artículo científico, así como el contenido de las mismas. Finalmente se presenta una figura que mediante preguntas e indicaciones, resume el contenido de cada una de las secciones del artículo. Se espera que con esta guía, los investigadores encuentren una herramienta útil que les ayude a escribir y publicar artículos científicos.
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 | 0.030 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.007 |
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".