MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4239243730 · doi:10.3138/jsp.39.4.417

Peer-Review Practice and Research for Academic Journals in China

2008· article· en· W4239243730 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fang Qing, Lifang Xu, Lian Xiaochuan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Scholarly Publishing · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
Topicscientometrics and bibliometrics research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaPublishingPeer reviewInternationalizationFunction (biology)Political sciencePublic relationsSociologyBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the rapid development of scholarly publishing and the internationalization of academic journals in China, peer review has begun to gain ground as well. After briefly summarizing the recent academic debate on the validity of peer review and the function of peer experts, the authors look into the major problems with the existing peer-review practices of academic journals in China.

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)0.526
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.918
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics, Scholarly communication, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics, Scholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.525
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5260.918
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0790.132
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0620.147
Open science0.0050.001
Research integrity0.0000.008
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 head0.828
GPT teacher head0.666
Teacher spread0.162 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations12
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Scholarly PublishingSame topicscientometrics and bibliometrics researchFrench-language works237,207