New measures taken for a better IJAV
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dear Colleagues,We are pleased to have the third volume of International Journal of Anatomical Variations (IJAV) being published. During the 22 months period since the announcement of IJAV, we have published 99 case reports, 3 letters to the editor and 1 editorial. Those manuscripts have been submitted by colleagues from 17 different countries including Argentina, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, India, Jamaica, Malaysia, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Trinidad & Tobago, Turkey, United Kingdom, and USA. Currently, total page number of the three volumes is 240, and 56 manuscripts are under review. Web traffic of IJAV shows an increasing trend since the beginning, and now we already reached most of the world (Figure 1). In this connection, I’d like to express my heartiest gratitude to our colleagues for their interest in IJAV, and to the editorial and scientific advisory board members for their hard work during the meticulous reviewing process and maintenance of the journal.On the other hand, the increasingly high number of submissions brought some difficulties along. To properly handle the manuscripts on time, and manage IJAV in our way to be a leading journal, we have to adopt some measures. Due to increased costs of article management, publishing, and storage, we are forced to implement author fees. Because editor-in-chief and all editors work for free, we are able to keep the fees much below those charged by many other journals. Effective from April 17th, 2010, we will charge a publication fee for all accepted articles (US$ 150, payable before publishing). No submission fee will be charged upon submission. The publication fee will apply for the manuscripts submitted after April 17th, 2010. The authors will not be charged for the manuscripts that are not accepted for publication. A waiver will be granted for lower income countries, students, and authors experiencing financial hardship, upon contacting the editor-in-chief. This waiver procedure will be completely confidential between the author and the editor-in-chief. Two thirds of the publication fee will be paid to the reviewers of the manuscript, whereas one third will be used to finance the maintenance of the website, typesetting of the article, and management of the editorial office. To encourage our reviewers to provide a prompt review, we will pay them. Typically, a reviewer will receive US$ 50 for reviewing a manuscript. PayPal system will be used for the transfers between the author, editor and reviewers. The publication fee of IJAV is much below those charged by our competitors, which charge US$ 225 to US$ 1,500 per manuscript. Additionally, some journals charge a non-refundable submission fee (typically US$ 25 to US$ 200) or a fast-track fee (US$ 450; non-refundable, even if the paper is rejected, with or without peer-review) to get the initial decision within 15 working days, publication within one month after acceptance. We substantially publish the articles within one month after acceptance, free of additional charge.Open access publishing is a relatively new model that allows all the readers to view, download, print, and redistribute any article without a subscription. It enables far greater distribution of an author’s study than the traditional subscription-based publishing model. Many authors in a variety of fields have begun to realize the benefits that open access publishing can provide in terms of increasing the impact of their work. In the open access model, the author pays the publication costs of an article. This charge replaces subscription charges and allows all interested readers to freely access the full-text of every published article [1–5].As a second change that will be effective from April 17th, 2010, the number of the authors will be limited to four. This measure is adopted to prevent any possible scientific misconduct, since it is not likely to have more than 4 authors actually contributing to a case report.The details for charging the publication fee will be provided to the authors along with the letter of acceptance.Hoping to have an increasingly wide collaboration in the future too.Sincerely,Selcuk Tunali, MD, PhDEditor-in-Chief & Publisher, IJAV
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 | 0.021 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.038 | 0.020 |
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".