Bibliographic record
Abstract
I have been reminded that my first editorial for the Canadian Journal of Addiction (CJA) was in the fall of 2012.1 Reflecting on the decade, it is noteworthy to record how far we’ve come since those early days where, building on a Newsletter inspired by Dr. Michael Varenbut, and with the support of a small group of reviewers, the Journal was managed and published by myself as Editor in Chief and then CSAM Administrator, Marilyn Dorozio, as Editorial Assistant. This record should also inform our future steps. Our editorial strategies have led to a number of developments. Broadening our Journal's Reach After two years as the Canadian Journal of Addiction Medicine, the Journal was retitled as the Canadian Journal of Addiction, signaling our intent to disseminate information about the spectrum of our field. Developing the Scientific Quality of the Journal A progressive increase in the number of multidisciplinary submissions allowed us to become more selective in the choice of articles based on their scientific rigor as assessed by two or three external reviewers from Canada and abroad. Linking up with a Credible Publisher Five years ago, we were fortunate to be adopted by Wolters Kluwer (WK), well known in our field and supporting a number of reputed international publications. Our publishers, Marianne Kerr and now along with Lauren Briede, have been valued mentors as we increased the number of annual publications from three to four issues and the number of articles per issue from 4 to up to 8. WK's global connections have provided the Journal access to a network of online libraries worldwide, in particular our inclusion in the leading database Web of Science (Clarivate) and platform Ovid (WK), raising the profile of our Journal. This has resulted in growth of our readership and manuscript submissions from beyond Canada — CJA reached a global readership in 2020 of over 20,000 online visitors and nearly 30,000 web page views, with the number of US readers matching Canadian readers, followed by UK, Australia and India, among others. Creating an Editorial Team and School It is a common experience for reviewers to become editors, but without formal training prior to assuming this expanded role. I was no exception. We joined a peer group of colleagues in the International Society of Addiction Journal Editors (ISAJE). Their regular mentorship and support of our new Journal remains invaluable. The second necessity was to create an executive Editorial Team, in addition to the Editorial Board of reviewers, to become the operational Board, meeting regularly. With the Editor in Chief, the team has scaled roles, from Deputy to Associate to Assistant Editor (including a Statistical Editor). The group is a critical source of support, as we commonly grapple with personal perceptions and eventual consensual interpretations. The names of our Executive Editorial Team are recognized in the masthead of every issue. A most rewarding development has been the incorporation of a two-year training program for Early Career Editors, giving graduates the opportunity to eventually join the Editorial Team. From now on, with the recruitment of promising, early career colleagues each year, CSAM will benefit from a pool of trained editors. Diversifying the Format of our Issues The Table of Contents of our issues reflect a panoply of diverse articles, depending on the eligible submissions received and accepted. We also provide annual Special Issues, involving a Guest Editor, with related articles exploring an addiction related topic in-depth, i.e. Comorbidities (2021), Alcohol (2020), and Cannabis (2019). With this issue, we also proudly feature our first Supplement—An Exploration of Solutions to the Youth Opioid Health Crisis. The articles, contributed by members of a leading research team, the Canadian Research Initiative in Substance Misuse (CRISM), include new disciplines not traditionally submitting to our Journal. Another planned project is a Special Issue on Gaming Disorder, cosponsored by the Addiction Section of the Canadian Psychological Association. These issues ensure the expansion of our multidisciplinary reach. French Translation of Abstracts While most of our readership is Anglophone, we have been fortunate to benefit from the translating skills of Melanie Parent for our bilingual audience. Her dedication in translating from English to French the complex terminology of various fields, often within short deadlines, is truly remarkable. Sustaining a Seasoned Office Most of us are involved in the journal on a very part-time basis. Sustained development requires a major anchor in the Journal's office, someone who monitors the Editorial Manager platform, gets to know the who's-who among our contributors and supports the Editorial Team in meeting firm deadlines for its varied tasks. We are privileged to be able to rely on the thoroughness, syntax acumen and overall fortitude of our Managing Editor, Tracy Howden, since 2015. While much has been accomplished in the administrative development of the Journal, much remains to be achieved in terms of effective current and future Journal management. Steps for the next decade: Journal Metrics and Rankings The Impact Factor (IF), despite its shortcomings, remains a prized yardstick for journals and publishers, as well as a magnet for contributors. Our initial expectation to be able to obtain this recognition from Clarivate (previously Thomson Reuters) was met with the realization that lengthier, protracted evidence of our editorial rigor and sustainability of our submissions, in quantity and quality, is required. Addiction, the top journal in our field, is more than a century old. Several other journals were founded some 50 years ago. We will continue to strive to meet these criteria in our adolescent second decade. Meanwhile, we have gauged our progress with emerging measures of scientific impact, by way of various lists in which the Journal is indexed. A direct alternative to the IF is Scopus (Elsevier), which assigns a journal ranking based on citation criteria—the CJA has received a CiteScore of ‘1’ (top 25% of journals). Our current SciMAGO Journal Rank (SJR) indicator is 0.363, also a measure of scientific influence based on number of citations.2 The CJA Altmetrics provided annually by WK complement more traditional measures and provide us with valuable data detailing the substantial growth of the Journal and the interest of our readership. Benefits of a Second 5-Year Contract with WK The experience of an entire production team allows us to keep tabs on an industry in constant state of evolution based on rapid technical advances, such as the use of data repositories, pre-prints and Open Access. There is also an expanding body of authorship guidelines and ethical considerations. Expanding the Journal's Multimedia Profile Both CSAM and the CJA are seeking opportunities to enhance our digital footprint, while supporting each other's efforts. Faced with exponential shifts in the way academic research is disseminated and a multitude of promising, alternative media options, selecting the optimal pathway is challenging, yet increasingly vital, in a progressively competitive market. Fostering a Global Reach There is recognition among major scientific journals that their criteria largely preclude access to the authors and experiences from the majority of the world's population.3 Efforts have started to remedy this unsatisfactory situation, including the provision of English translation and editing services for non-English speakers offered by a number of companies. Editage is the service provider which WK has partnered with to provide resources to authors submitting to our Journal. It involves fee-based language and editing services, along with resources for neophyte authors. An International Advisory Board is being developed to enhance our Canadian medical research with international perspectives. CJA is also committed to ongoing engagement around issues related to equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI). WK and ISAJE, among others, provide us with educational resources and recommended guidelines to better promote parity in publishing academic science. Nurturing and Enhancing our Panel of Reviewers Peer Reviewers provide a critical service in bringing most submissions to a publishable level. Institutions, however, have been slow in tangibly recognizing this essential service. Advocacy for the appropriate recognition of this work has led to varied proposals but, so far, the topic does not appear to be prioritized enough in academia.4 We wish to acknowledge our reviewers for their time and effort, for which we are grateful. Addiction Medicine professionals are encouraged to join the CJA Reviewer Panel, an important body for the credibility of our papers. Currently, we are also keen to recruit members with PhDs in Psychology, Internal Medicine, and Pharmacology, to further diversify the pool of expertise and represent the breadth of our field. Hoping the above reflection is of help as we continue to further position the future of the CJA. May I conclude by expressing my gratitude to the CSAM Board and office for their unwavering support of our Journal.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".