Special Report UNIFORM REQUIREMENTS FOR MANUSCRIPTS SUBMITTED TO BIOMEDICAL JOURNALS INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF MEDICAL JOURNAL EDITORS*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SMALL group of editors of general medical journals met informally in Vancouver, British Columbia, in 1978 to establish guidelines for the format of manuscripts submitted to their journals. The group became known as the Vancouver Group. Its requirements for manuscripts, including formats for bibliographic references developed by the National Library of Medicine, were first published in 1979. The Vancouver Group expanded and evolved into the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), which meets annually; gradually it has broadened its concerns. The committee has produced five editions of the “Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals. ” Over the years, issues have arisen that go beyond manuscript preparation. Some of these issues are now covered in the “Uniform Requirements”; others are addressed in separate statements. Each statement has been published in a scientific journal. The fifth edition (1997) is an effort to reorganize and reword the fourth edition to increase clarity and address concerns about rights, privacy, descriptions of methods, and other matters. The total content of “Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals ” may be reproduced for educational, not-for-profit purposes without regard for copyright; the committee encourages distribution of the material. Journals that agree to use the “Uniform Requirements” (over 500 do so) are asked to cite the 1997 document in their instructions to authors. Inquiries and comments should be sent to Kathleen
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 | 0.224 | 0.462 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.023 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.066 | 0.119 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".