MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3020457538 · doi:10.1057/s41304-020-00262-1

Publishing in political science journals

2020· article· en· W3020457538 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Political Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Science Research and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublishingComparative politicsPolitical scienceTask (project management)PoliticsPeer reviewProcess (computing)Library sciencePublic relationsEngineering ethicsSociologyComputer scienceManagementLawEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Publication in academic journals is a critical part of the academic career. However, writing academic papers and getting them published is not a straightforward task. This article seeks to provide editors’ insights into the process of publishing by outlining common factors that lead to papers being rejected as well as charting strategies that ensure papers have the best chance of being sent out for review. The article discusses the important issue of peer review, including how best to respond to reviews and the expected academic conventions in terms of acting as reviewers.

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.

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)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.107
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.899
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.107
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.014
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.147
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.293 · 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