Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1978, following a meeting in Vancouver, a group of editors of leading medical journals, the Vancouver Group, published a draft report outlining proposed requirements for standardising the format of citations and suggesting standard ways of preparing and submitting papers for publication in biomedical journals. The first formal version of the requirements was published in 1979, and since then the group, now known as the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), has published further versions of the document, the title of which was changed in 2013 to the ICMJE Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. These documents have been greatly influential in biomedical publishing and have played an important part in various ways: encouraging publication of protocols in advance of studies; in the establishment of trial registries; in encouraging compliance with requirements for trial registration; in revealing potential conflicts of interest; in identifying publications that raise concerns and may be considered for retraction; in defining the nature of a peer reviewed journal; and many other matters. However, it is not clear to what extent the requirements/recommendations have helped authors rather than editors and may have encouraged journals to focus more on process than on content. A systematic review of the evidence that reflects the extent to which the requirements/recommendations laid down in the ICMJE documents have been effective and beneficial in changing publication practices in biomedical journals would be of interest.
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 | 0.070 | 0.438 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.048 |
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".