MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407027501 · doi:10.1016/j.jvscit.2025.101745

An introduction to the journal review and editorial process

2025· editorial· en· W4407027501 on OpenAlexaff
Ben Li, Matthew R. Smeds

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vascular Surgery Cases and Innovative Techniques · 2025
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealth and Medical Research Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMedical education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Preparing, revising, and finalizing a manuscript for publication can be a challenging process, particularly for trainees and early-career researchers. 1 Understanding the journal review and editorial process can provide authors with insights into how to effectively write, format, and submit initial and revised versions of their manuscripts to increase the potential for publication.1 In this article, we describe key aspects of the journal review and editorial process from submission to publication, with specific examples from the Journal of Vascular Surgery Cases, Innovations and Techniques (JVSCIT) (Fig).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.040
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.144
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score0.212

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0400.144
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0120.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0160.006
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0100.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0430.036

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.386 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
DomainEvaluation
GenreEditorial

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Vascular Surgery Cases and Innovative TechniquesSame topicHealth and Medical Research ImpactsFrench-language works237,207