Journal of Craniofacial Surgery Open: Welcome to the New Era of Education and Research in the Field of Maxillofacial Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
“Nessun effetto in natura è senza ragione, intendi la ragione e non ti bisogna esperienza.” —Leonardo Da Vinci Marco Cicciù, DDS, PhD Department of General Surgery and Surgical-Medical Specialties, School of Dentistry, University of Catania, Via S. Sofia 78, 95124 Catania, Italy [email protected] The recent years signed a revolution in scientific research and academic areas. Despite this, it seems that this phenomenon does not tend to stop but rather accelerates further over time, above all thanks to new technologies and new ways of dissemination. Scientific publishing has seen a continuous “digitization” starting from paper and now with the new generations of scholars, it is also starting to approach social media to be more captivating, widespread, and citable. Unfortunately, even in the academic field, the scientific manuscript has now become an “almost” bargaining chip to obtain funds and financing to advance research institutes and Universities themselves, and obviously, the way of doing research and publishing has a more entrepreneurial. Open access refers to a method of publishing material produced by scientific research allowing: “free and unrestricted access1,2.” Open access is a movement that was born within the academic world to exploit the potential of digital and the web to disseminate and share research results without barriers or restrictions, especially basic ones. It was born, mainly, as an opportunity for research that feeds and progresses through the sharing of knowledge, dissemination, and access to the results of those who preceded us. Properly an academic author who chooses to publish his works in open access guarantees as stated by the Berlin declaration:“[…] Our mission of disseminating knowledge is only half complete if the information is not made widely and readily available to society. New possibilities of knowledge dissemination not only through the classical form but also and increasingly through the open access paradigm via the Internet have to be supported […] “3 In an even broader sense, the term expresses the free online availability of digital content in general and concerns the set of freely usable knowledge and creativity, as it is not covered by restrictions related to intellectual property. Open access is at the origin of many discussions among academics, librarians, University administrators, and politicians, due to the different interests of these different actors, particularly regarding the economic remuneration of university students. The researcher’s work is made available to the public quickly, eliminating timescales of scientific publishing. The material is uploaded to open, open-access platforms, in this way the materials are accessible by anyone, without the restrictions imposed by scientific publishers. For authors, the main motivation for creating an article in open access is the impact of the article. The more the article is used, cited, and applied, the better it is for research and the researcher’s career.4 In most cases, the primary users of research articles are other researchers. Open access allows researchers, as readers, to access journal articles to which their libraries have not subscribed. The great beneficiaries of open access will be developing countries where, at present, there are Universities which do not subscribe to scientific journals. However, every researcher benefits, as no library can offer a subscription to all scientific journals. Many library associations have signed declarations in favor of open access. For example, in June 2004, the Canadian Library Association passed a resolution on open access. They encourage teachers, administrators, and others to adopt open access and its virtues. The Association of Research Libraries of America has recognized the growing need for access to scientific information. A study of the development of open access journals from 1993 to 2009, published in 2011, suggests that looking at both the number of journals and the increases in the total number of articles, the golden street of open access publishing has experienced a growing rapidly, particularly between the years 2000 and 2009. It has been estimated that there were around 19,500 articles published in open access in 2000, while the number grew to 191,850 articles in 2009. The number of journals, for the year 2000, was estimated at around 740, and 4769 for 2009; numbers showing considerable growth, albeit at a more moderate rate than the level of growth of the articles. These results support the idea that open access journals have increased in both numbers and average output over time.4 Maxillofacial surgery is a branch of surgical medicine in full evolution, thanks also to what has been the advent of new technologies that have allowed the ideation of new techniques that are more predictable and less invasive for patients. It is also useless to recall the constant presence of new biomaterials, tools, and bioengineering applications that require constant evolution and research to further improve, open access can already have a significant positive response for this purpose.4 Since I started my experience in the Journal Craniofacial Surgery Editorial Board, I noticed how the number of submissions strongly increased, reaching and passing 1000 each year. The quality of the published report has been certified by the number of journal citations increasing. In the last 15 years, the educational mission of the Journal acted as a reference for international scholars in the field of maxillofacial surgery. The basic aims of the Journal of Craniofacial Surgery: Open always remain the same of The Journal of Craniofacial Surgery; the fields of interest are the same, and only the visibility that the manuscripts could obtain varies. It will continue with the tradition, focused on innovation and education. As already mentioned, even moved precisely by these new interests, research institutes or universities may need to make their manuscripts open, not only among researchers but also among clinicians and companies for advertising purposes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.108 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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; both teacher heads 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".