Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been a little over a year since I assumed the role of Editor-in-Chief for Neuro-Oncology. It is a privilege to work with the Associate Editors (AE) and members of the Editorial Board and to liaison with the leadership of the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO) and Oxford University Press (OUP) to continue to deliver high-quality scientific contributions. Elizabeth Martinson, the Managing Editor of Neuro-Oncology, has been a true partner, and I continue to learn so much about the scientific publishing world. The significance of the work published in the journal is evident from the increased Impact Factor from 13.029 to 15.9 this year. This will rank the journal 4th of 212 in clinical neurology and 16th of 241 in oncology journals overall, which are in Q1 for both categories.1 This is as a result of the dedication and commitment of researchers in the field and their passion to increase scientific knowledge so that it can translate to patient care. We are grateful that they choose the journal for highlighting their work, and we continue to work diligently to ensure a rapid, fair, and transparent review process. I would like to recognize and thank Ken Aldape for his leadership, which is directly responsible for the increase. It is also exciting that Neuro-Oncology Advances and Neuro-Oncology Practice have both received their first Impact Factor of 3.5 and 2.7, respectively.1 On behalf of the Neuro-Oncology community I would like to congratulate Gelareh Zadeh and Martin Taphoorn and their editorial teams for their outstanding leadership and commitment to grow the international Neuro-oncology publishing enterprise. Over the last few years, the journal has seen an increase in submissions focused on research in pediatric neuro-oncology. This reflects the tremendous expansion of investigations providing insight into molecular and genomic subgroups of pediatric brain tumors and the development of effective therapeutic strategies. The journal is fully aligned with SNO’s commitment to ensure our pediatric neuro-oncology colleagues are an integral group. In addition to having a section of the journal dedicated to this area, we have expanded the cadre of AEs to expedite rapid review of submitted manuscripts. I am pleased that Maryam Fouladi and Bill Weiss have agreed to join Annie Huang in the role of AE for the journal. One of my major goals as Editor-in-Chief is to develop educational activities to allow junior members of SNO to learn about the editorial process and to provide training in reviewing manuscripts. The launch of the Editorial Scholars Program in July 2023 is one opportunity to engage with junior faculty to increase exposure to, involvement in, and commitment to the journal peer-review process. Consistent with SNO’s commitment to Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, applicants from traditionally underrepresented groups in science and medicine were strongly encouraged to submit applications. We received 51 applications and 19 scholars (10 women) have been paired with mentors who will supervise real-time peer review of manuscripts. All applicants will be able to attend 2 virtual training sessions that will review the scientific publishing process and discuss the characteristics of a structured peer review. The scholars will meet in person for a mentoring session at the 2023 SNO meeting in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada that will involve small breakout groups to discuss mock reviews and provide a forum for networking. I am grateful to the members of the Editorial Scholars Steering Committee and the Editorial Board members who have agreed to serve as mentors and to SNO for overseeing the organizational and operational aspects of the program. I look forward to working together to ensure that Neuro-Oncology is the premier academic resource in our field and to grow a diverse team of trained reviewers who can contribute to the academic publishing enterprise.
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 | 0.028 | 0.157 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.044 | 0.036 |
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".