MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414407630 · doi:10.3998/jep.8758

Valuing the Role of the Editor: Now and in the Future

2025· article· en· W4414407630 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Electronic Publishing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntellectual Property Law
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
Keywordsnot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reflecting on the last 30 years of the Journal of Electronic Publishing (JEP) as the current co-editors, we find ourselves tracing the role of the journal editor over time.It is difficult to reflect backward without making sweeping claims that may or may not be grounded in truth: that journal editing used to be more about gatekeeping (was it?)and ensuring rejection rates stayed high (for everyone?)and thereby preserving prestige (always?).What we can speak to with confidence, however, is our own commitment to editorial practice as curation and community building-to taking a values-based approach to editing this journal that balances inclusion with interest, collaboration with timeliness.We remain grateful to the editors who came before us and steered the JEP ship in such a way that we can enter this fourth decade of the journal with our value-laden commitment at the helm.JEP started off as an academic publishing trade-initiated, free, online journal, with an editorial focus on curation and experimentation.Colin Day (then director of the University of Michigan Press) started JEP in 1995 to "bring together all the interesting papers he had been reading and hearing presented about scholarly electronic publishing" alongside original refereed publications, interesting links, and news items.Yet the journal was also a testbed, a vehicle for experimentation to "test new ideas about the way an electronic journal might operate" (Day, quoted in Turner 1998).Judith Axler Turner, who took over from Colin Day as editor in 1997, further explored this in her first issue for JEP, asking editors of electronic-only, peer-reviewed scholarly journals "to write articles explaining what they were doing, why, and how it was working" (1998).For Day and Turner, the journal was primarily aimed at publishers, in addition to librarians, academics, and the generally interested; yet they saw what they were doing as a "broader, more intellectual approach to the universe of issues that cluster around the topic of electronic publishing."As Day explained, "we do not seek how-to articles but we do seek how-to-think-about articles" (quoted in Turner 1998).Turner and Maria Bonn, JEP's editor in the mid-2010s, continued this focus while exploring "many of the urgent topics of the contemporary publishing conversation"-mainly in relation to the economics and politics of publishing while experimenting with the "expressive

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.538
Threshold uncertainty score0.661

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.242 · 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