<i>Imaging Neuroscience</i> opening editorial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this editorial we introduce a new non-profit open access journal, Imaging Neuroscience. In April 2023, editors of the journals NeuroImage and NeuroImage:Reports resigned, and a month later launched Imaging Neuroscience. NeuroImage had long been the leading journal in the field of neuroimaging. While the move to fully open access in 2020 represented a positive step toward modern academic practices, the publication fee was set to a level that the editors found unethical and unsustainable. The publisher of NeuroImage, Elsevier, was unwilling to reduce the fee after much discussion. This led us to launch Imaging Neuroscience with MIT Press, intended to replace NeuroImage as our field’s leading journal, but with greater control by the neuroimaging academic community over publication fees and adoption of modern and ethical publishing practices.
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 | 0.005 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.029 |
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".