Bibliographic record
Abstract
At the last Canadian Journal of Surgery (CJS) Editorial Board meeting, discussion focused on the continuous improvement in service for authors and readers. As this editorial goes to press, it is timely to update readers on the discussion. We are pleased with a much improved editorial processing time with the implementation of Manuscript Central in mid-2008. Although this has dramatically reduced turnaround times and expedited communication, there remains considerable delay from the time of submission to publication. The Editorial Board shares this frustration with authors and readers but has taken some further steps to address this delay. The first recommendation is to increase the focus on original scientific contributions, which has brought our practice of accepting case notes under scrutiny. Case notes consume considerable time from the editorial staff, associate editors and coeditors. The board agreed that eliminating these reports will allow greater effort to be placed on the assessment of original research with rigorous scientific design of interest to CJS readers. This effort will likely result in tougher peer reviews and the acceptance of fewer articles for publication. The benefit to the journal is that its impact factor will likely increase and greater numbers of high-quality articles will be published in a more timely way. A second recommendation is to expand the expertise of the Editorial Board by identifying associate editors who will play a bigger role in the review process. These editors will represent the areas of expertise of the journal's sponsoring societies as well as epidemiology, health policy, basic science, surgical biology and diagnostic imaging. They will be invited to share, with the coeditors-in-chief, the responsibility of seeking reviewers and contributing to the review process. This should greatly enhance the quality of the peer review process and meet the high standards expected for subspecialty review. In addition, associate editors will raise novel topics of interest for discussion at board meetings. This will necessitate a growth of the membership of the Editorial Board. As before, the selection of associate editors for the board will be made in close consultation with the specialty societies who sponsor the journal. Finally, the journal will establish an Editorial Review Board of up to 100 people, each of whom will contribute up to 1 review monthly to the peer-review process. As such, we will increase our number of expert reviewers throughout the next year. This will further enhance the quality of our peer review process and provide timely results. In summary, as the CJS strives to fulfill its mission of contributing to the effective continuing medical education of Canadian surgical specialists, some fundamental changes in the selection of high-impact articles and in the composition and roles of the Editorial Board are ahead. It is our hope that this will enhance the journal's high impact with timely publication and better meet the high standards of quality demanded by our readers. Garth L. Warnock, MD Coeditor, Canadian Journal of Surgery
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 | 0.068 | 0.177 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.031 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.041 | 0.018 |
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".