Bibliographic record
Abstract
JBJS Open Access was introduced in 2016 after a lengthy period of discussion by the JBJS Editorial Board and Board of Trustees. The goal of this initiative was to expand our ability to publish basic-science and clinical research findings as well as new and innovative approaches that have the potential to impact the care of musculoskeletal disease and injury worldwide. This new platform was intended to provide opportunities for authors to submit manuscripts that would be of interest to readers outside of North America. JBJS OA was designed to offer the same quality, editorial oversight, and innovation as the JBJS flagship journal, all of which would be achieved by relying on our well-established pool of Consultant Reviewers. One of our initial goals was to achieve indexing as soon as the appropriate milestones were reached, after which all previously published articles would be indexed. The JBJS OA peer-review process was established to be independent of JBJS and to provide timely, online, evidence-based content relevant to musculoskeletal health-care practitioners worldwide. The purpose of this editorial is to update the readership on the progress of JBJS OA 2 years after its inception. JBJS OA manuscripts are published on a continuous basis. Since inception, 162 manuscripts (80% clinical and 20% research) have been submitted for review. Manuscripts have been submitted from a wide variety of countries, including the United States, Japan, China, Switzerland, Canada, the Netherlands, New Zealand, South Africa, Taiwan, Germany, India, Indonesia, Jordan, and the United Kingdom. Fifty-one manuscripts have been published to date, with an acceptance rate of 57%. All of the manuscripts are accessible online, without charge, to any reader. The articles cover a wide range of interesting and thought-provoking topics that are relevant to the provision of quality musculoskeletal care. We hope that you will agree that the published manuscripts are equivalent to JBJS articles in terms of clarity, content, and appearance. Interest in JBJS OA has been strong, with approximately 50,000 visits and 100,000 page views since inception. In September 2018, we were pleased to learn that JBJS OA is now live in PubMed Central. We are hopeful that indexing in PubMed Central will (1) encourage more authors to accept transfer to JBJS OA if their JBJS submission is declined and (2) encourage more authors from around the world to submit their manuscripts directly to JBJS OA for review. All submitted manuscripts will continue to receive objective and thoughtful peer review by the Journal’s Consultant Reviewers. On behalf of the Board of Associate Editors, we look forward to updating the readership on the progress of JBJS OA in the future and thank readers for their interest to date.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".