Bibliographic record
Abstract
Snapshots of the Journal of Allied Health reveal profiles from the perspective of both production-related data and manuscript content. Shown below are data for the period May 1, 2013 to April 30, 2014.The Acceptance Rate figures are incomplete since of the 96 manuscripts submitted in that 12-month period, 30 of them (31.3%) still were pending. Some articles eventually will be accepted while others will be rejected. Consequently, the Acceptance Rate will change after a final decision either to publish or not publish is made for each manuscript. Research Notes manuscripts require the most time in the system from when they initially are submitted until a final decision is made. One reason for the longer period is that some items initially begin as Original Research manuscripts, but reviewers decide that it would be more appropriate to change their designation to the Research Notes category, which eventually requires more communication going back and forth among the parties involved.Similar to what occurs along a coastline, the Journal has both high tides and low tides. During the months of May to July in 2013, 35% of all manuscripts were submitted, whereas the months of January to March in 2014 accounted for only 17.7% of submissions. During that 1-year period, the United States accounted for approximately 72% of all manuscripts that were submitted. The next largest source was Australia, from which nearly 14% of manuscripts originated. The rest of the papers came from Canada, India, Iran, Jamaica, Kuwait, the Netherlands, Turkey, and the United Kingdom.During those same 12 months, 122 different reviewers were involved, representing 84% of invitees who accepted. Reasons for not participating usually stemmed from having too many other commitments at the time of the invitation or indicating that there was not suitable congruence between the topic of a manuscript and that individual's expertise. Among the group that conducted reviews, 51% did so on time, which means the initial assessment was done within a 30-day period. Several articles can go through as many three iterations, however, which explains the longer average amounts of time for the entire review process. Among reviewers who were unable to conform to the 30-day timetable for the first review, only 10% took more than 50 days.Given the wide-ranging nature of the various professions that fall under the rubric of allied health, it is not surprising that a great many different kinds of disciplines are represented in the manuscripts published in the category Original Research in the journal issues over the 5-year period from Summer 2009 to Spring 2014. The following professions were included: Audiology, Clinical Laboratory Science, Dental Hygiene, Emergency Medical Services, Nuclear Medicine Technology, Nutrition-Dietetics, Occupational Therapy, Physical Therapy, Physician Assistant, Radiologic Technology, Respiratory Therapy, and Speech-Language Pathology. The greatest number of manuscripts was on the topic of physical therapy, followed by occupational therapy, and physician assistant.The two largest kinds of topics covered in the manuscripts submitted were interprofessional education (not counting 12 papers that appeared in a Special Issue on that topic in Fall 2010) and studies involving students. Considerable overlap existed between the two categories, however, because many papers are based on an examination of various activities designed to expose students to notions pertaining to interprofessional education and practice. Other types of manuscripts had a focus on topics such as health disparities, student learning styles, patient behavior change, reflective thinking, faculty job satisfaction, and workforce retention.As editor, I believe the results demonstrate that the Journal of Allied Health reflects what is happening to an informative degree across many professions, involving the broad area of health professions education. Reviewers deserve a great amount of credit, not only for being willing to accept invitations to review manuscripts, but also to fulfill their assessment responsibilities in a high quality and timely manner. …
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 | 0.004 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.028 | 0.049 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.044 | 0.020 |
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".