Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the past year, Transplant Infectious Disease continued to grow and refine its focus.We continued to publish a wide range of key papers that align with our focus on infections in immunocompromised hosts.In fact, this year saw an increase in the number of papers focused on stem cell transplantation and oncology ID submitted and accepted.We published our third special edition, focused on donor-derived infections.I want to thank our guest editors Stephanie Pouch and Karen Waller who accomplished the herculean task of getting this done.We continued to collaborate with the Transplant Infectious Diseases Section of the Transplantation Society to conduct Clinico-Pathologic Conferences (CPCs) -the recordings of the webinar are now available with each published article online.I want to personally thank our amazing CPC team: Maricar Malinis, who leads the program, along with Wanessa Clemente, Dennis Neofytos, and Stephanie Pouch.We have begun collaborating with other global TID groups on these CPC and I am personally excited about collaborations with ESGICH, the European Study Group on Infections in Compromised Hosts, and BRITMIC, the British Transplant ID, Mycology and Infection in Immunocompromised Network.We welcome other societies or organizations who want to collaborate on a CPC to reach out to tidedjournal@gmail.com and we can work on ways to move forward.We have introduced a new process to consider papers that have been previously rejected at other journals -you just submit a revised paper, addressing key concerns raised in the prior review, the decision letter, and a response letter to the comments as a new submission to the journal.We work hard to consider papers quickly -we've had seven such transferred papers that were accepted within 5 days of submission and several others that were accepted after further reviewer comments were addressed within a month of sending the journal to us.Importantly, this is all accomplished without a charge fee for review or publication.Despite a continued high rate of submissions, we have maintained our average turn-around-time from submission to decision at 20.6 days.To accomplish this, we need your help in providing timely review of articles.I am continually amazed at how many of you respond positively to our requests to review our papers.We have to remember that this is a two-way street -if you are going to submit papers, you also need to participate in the peer review process to allow for timely publication of articles.This year represents a time of change on the editorial board.I want to thank Saima Aslam and Monica Slavin who will be stepping away as Deputy Editors for the Journal.We have welcomed Stephanie Pouch and will be welcoming one more new editor by the end of 2024 to the team.In addition, we are developing working groups to better engage our editorial board members in the day-to-day operations of the journal.We have created working groups that will help the editors in focused activities as outlined below: CPC Working Group
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 | 0.047 | 0.203 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.036 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.024 | 0.032 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 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".