MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3213277513 · doi:10.1016/j.acmx.2017.03.005

Data Sharing: A New Editorial Initiative of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Implications for the Editors’ Network

2017· article· es· W3213277513 on OpenAlexaff
Fernándo Alfonso, Karlen Adamyan, Jean‐Yves Artigou, Michael Aschermann, Michael Boehm, Alfonso Buendía-Hernández, Pao‐Hsien Chu, Ariel Cohen, Livio Dei, Mirza Dilić, Anton Doubell, Darío Echeverri, Nuray Enç, Ignacio Ferreira‐González, Krzysztof J. Filipiak‬, Andreas J. Flammer, Eckart Fleck, Plamen Gatzov, Carmen Ginghină, Lino Gonçalves, Habib Haouala, Mahmoud Hassanein, Gerd Heusch, Kurt Huber, I Hulín, Mario Ivanuša, Rungroj Krittayaphong, Chu-Pak Lau, Germanas Marinskis, François Mach, Luíz Felipe Pinho Moreira, Tuomo Nieminen, Latifa Oukerraj, Stefan Perings, Luc Piérard, Tatjana Potpara, Walter Reyes-Caorsi, Se‐Joong Rim, Olaf Rødevand, Georges Saadé, Mikael Sander, Е. V. Shlyakhto, Bilgin Timuralp, Dimitris Tousoulis, Dilek Ural, Jan J. Piek, Albert Varga, Thomas F. Lüscher

Bibliographic record

VenueArchivos de cardiología de México · 2017
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsLibrary and Archives Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical journalData sharingPolitical scienceEngineering ethicsAccountabilityLibrary scienceMedical educationPublic relationsMedicineAlternative medicineComputer scienceEngineeringLawPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) provides recommendations to improve the editorial standards and scientific quality of biomedical journals. These recommendations range from uniform technical requirements to more complex and elusive editorial issues including ethical aspects of the scientific process. Recently, registration of clinical trials, conflicts of interest disclosure, and new criteria for authorship - emphasizing the importance of responsibility and accountability -, have been proposed. Last year, a new editorial initiative to foster sharing of clinical trial data was launched. This review discusses this novel initiative with the aim of increasing awareness among readers, investigators, authors and editors belonging to the Editors' Network of the European Society of Cardiology.

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 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)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.253
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Open science, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesOpen science
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.433
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.253
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0160.008
Research integrity0.0010.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.459
GPT teacher head0.551
Teacher spread0.092 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchivos de cardiología de MéxicoSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207