Diversity, equity and inclusion directions of JACEP Open
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) are important in all aspects of health care and academia, but especially in biomedical publishing. JACEP Open is committed to promoting DEI efforts by widening the diversity of its editors, peer reviewers, and authors to better reflect our readers around the globe. We intend to do this by increasing the transparency of our recruitment, retainment, and review processes. Why are diversity, equity, and inclusion important? DEI in scientific thought is critical for continuing creativity and innovation. Medical research needs to take advantage of a diverse workforce to address the various challenges and problems of the modern medical system for the betterment of the health of our fellow human beings. Considerations for DEI are multifaceted and involve active attention to groups that are underrepresented in academic publishing due to gender, ethnicity, and race as well as geography.1, 2 These groups are also underrepresented among principal investigators in grant applications and awards that may present additional barriers to publication.3 It is time to actively challenge these biases because research that is conducted by diverse teams is cited more often and more likely to be published in prestigious journals.4, 5 We intend that our DEI practices not only be focused on our staff, editorial board, and reviewers but also promote inclusivity across the entire publication process. We plan to continue our current DEI practices such as blinding our reviewers to the names and institutions of the authors as well as continuing to actively and purposively recruiting a more diverse peer reviewer and editorial pool. Because JACEP Open has an international scope and focus, we hope to increase our visibility among our international readers and to recruit more international authors. We also plan to survey the demographics of our editors, reviewers, and authors. We hope that the entire scientific and medical publishing will join our call to action. Attention to DEI is critical to giving equal voice to all stakeholders and ensuring that the science reflects society. Authors: DEI Task Force on behalf of the entire JACEP Open Editorial Board
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 | 0.459 | 0.636 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.086 | 0.080 |
| Open science | 0.015 | 0.079 |
| Research integrity | 0.048 | 0.051 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.038 | 0.011 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".