The 10th year of the <i>Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle (JCSM) is an open access peer-reviewed journal that was founded 10 years ago in 2010. It is published by Wiley and in association with the non-profit organization ‘Society on Sarcopenia, Cachexia, and Wasting Disorders (SCWD1)’. Currently, the journal is published six times per year. JCSM attracts research from many different countries such as the USA, Germany, England, Italy, Netherlands, Australia, France, Canada, China, and Switzerland (top 10 countries where submissions originated from in 2019). Editor-in-chief is Prof. Stefan Anker (Berlin, Germany), Co-Editor-in-Chief is Prof. Stephan von Haehling (Göttingen, Germany), and Senior Consulting Editor is Prof. Andrew Coats (Rome, Italy). The editorial office is led by Monika Diek and Corinna Denecke, without whom this journal could not be published in time. This year JCSM has received 642 submissions so far (until October 2020). Certainly, it is only possible to evaluate such a large amount of submissions together with a great team of associate editors and reviewers. All these researchers work closely together with the goal to publish excellent new original papers, reviews, and editorials in the field of wasting diseases. JCSM's main areas of interest include the loss of body weight with regard to cachexia, malnourishment, anorexia, and lipolysis, as well as loss of muscle mass in sarcopenia and muscle wasting. Most original articles focus on preclinical investigations with regard to a better mechanistic understanding of the underlying pathophysiology; clinical investigations and biomarker assessment in patients with different wasting diseases; and epidemiological questions regarding the general burden of wasting diseases and its impact on other co-morbidities. Since cachexia and sarcopenia often occur in the setting of other chronic diseases, many different illnesses are thematized in the journal, including cancer, heart failure, and other cardiovascular diseases, chronic kidney disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, neurological diseases, and many others. There is also great interest in clinical studies, presenting the results of randomized, placebo controlled trials. Another field of interest includes age-related changes of body composition and its impact on patients' quality of life, endurance, morbidity, and mortality. JCSM targets the entire scientific community including biologists, pharmacologists, physicists, biochemists, physicians, clinicians, trialists, dieticians, nurses, students, and basic scientists. In 2019, Web of Science ranked JCSM number 2/51 in the section ‘Geriatrics & Gerontology’ and number 9/165 in the section ‘Medicine, General & Internal’ in 2019.2 One of the most important measures for any research journal is the Thomson Scientific journal impact. The 2019 Thomson Scientific journal impact factor for JCSM was calculated by counting all citations in 2019 to papers published in JCSM in 2017 (987 citations) and 2018 (699 citations) and dividing it by the number of citable items published in JCSM in 2017 (n = 82) and 2018 (n = 90). Hence, the 2019 Thomson Scientific journal impact factor for JCSM was 9.802 (1686/172). The number of total citations towards JCSM is increasing each year [2013: 516 citations, 2014: 713 citations (38%), 2015: 901 citations (26%), 2016: 1310 (+45%), 2017: 2207 citations (+68%), 2018: 2799 citations (+27%), 2019: 3553 citations (+27%)].2 Some papers in the past have been heavily cited: the most cited paper ever published in JCSM was an editorial by von Haehling et al.3 published in 2010 about ‘facts and numbers’ with regard to cachexia. So far this paper has already been cited 521 times. With regard to the top 10 cited papers ever published in JCSM (Table 1), these publications on average received 189 citations (as of September 2020), and they were all published between 2010 and 2016. Interestingly, these top 10 cited papers included a variation of different publications with four reviews, three editorials, and three original articles. Such diversity is also found when looking at the top 20 cited papers published in 2017–19 (Tables 2–4) with 11 reviews, 5 editorials, and 44 original articles—even though most citations are towards original articles. The three best cited papers from each year (2017–19; nine papers) mainly addressed the following research areas: cachexia and malnourishment (three papers); sarcopenia, muscle function and mass (seven papers); and adipose tissue (one paper). This demonstrates that nowadays not only research into the field of cachexia and malnourishment is of great interest to the scientific community but also research into sarcopenia, muscle function and mass. The authors of this manuscript certify that they comply with the ethical guidelines for authorship and publishing in the Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle.73 None declared.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".