Update on Our Action Plan for Equity, Inclusion, and Diversity in Publishing at <i>JGR: Biogeosciences</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We made a commitment to better include underrepresented members of our community in the publication pipeline of JGR: Biogeosciences. This commitment consists of regular updates on our policies and practices, and concrete actions we intend to implement over the next year. So far, our progress to tackle biases and ensure equitable research in the biogeosciences has focused on improving diversity of our associate editor and reviewer pools, increasing awareness of unconscious bias in peer‐review, and promoting inclusion in global collaborations. In this update, we explore manuscript submissions and manuscript decisions by gender, and we present a pilot that aims to promote ethical and equitable global collaborations in resource‐poor settings. We end our editorial by presenting our next set of actions that we plan on completing over the next year, which include a more thorough analysis of reviewer demographics.
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 | 0.372 | 0.593 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.034 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.049 | 0.047 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.023 |
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".