International Journal of Health Policy and Management (IJHPM): A Decade of Advancing Knowledge and Influencing Global Health Policy (2013-2023)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In June 2022, the WoS JCR released its last impact factor (IF) of 4.967, positioning IJHPM as the 10th-ranked journal out of 88 in the "Health Policy & Services" category.This achievement places IJHPM in the first quartile (Q1).IJHPM was free of charge for eight years, from June 2013 to June 2021.However, in order to cover the expenses associated with editorial tasks, administrative support, technical tasks, and indexing services, we transitioned from the Green Open Access publishing model to the Gold Open Access.To facilitate publishing, we have taken into account discounts and waivers for authors from low-and middle-income countries (LMICs), students, and IJHPM reviewers. An Overview of IJHPM's AdvancesIndexing and Abstracting Databases In the beginning, the five-year vision was to be indexed in PMC, Medline, Scopus, and WoS by 2018.Therefore, we designed the journal's processes and workflow, such as the peer review process, technical standards, and the website, based on the four abstracting and indexing evaluation criteria and also followed international and reputable guidelines like the International Committee for Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and World Association of Medical Editors (WAME).Furthermore, the IJHPM's editorial office continually evaluates the quality of processes and implemented some innovative actions to advance its rank among leading scientific journals.For instance, in order to standardize sex and gender reporting in research publications, we began incorporating the Sex and Gender in Research (SAGER) guideline 1 into our author guide in May 2021 and encouraged our authors to follow it.In April 2023, we switched to the CRediT format in accordance with the updated technical requirements in PubMed for reporting the authors' contributions.The first goal of IJHPM was achieved remarkably quickly,
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 | 0.033 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.015 |
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".