Crossref

Well, let's look at the statistical analysis and follow the funding.

Crossref lists the USDA's Agricultural Research Service as a funder.

That's standard public funding expected for this kind of work.

Sure.

Instead of asking another large language model to make another prediction about whether the citation actually exists, require the system to consult an authoritative external source.

If an answer cites a medical paper, query PubMed or Crossref and retrieve the actual paper.

If it cites a judicial decision, retrieve the decision from an appropriate legal database.

If the purported source cannot independently be verified, don't present it as an established reference.

And in that journal, there are many well-researched pieces.

In the last quarter, we now have them indexed through Crossref.

So they're academically searchable for people looking to extend their research and apply the journal articles in each issue.

And maybe most intriguingly, and this has just started, we're on our second issue now, we're doing showcase issues.

Subheading Automation as philosophy JOS automates remorselessly for cost and editor review efficiency.

In practice this means proof generation from markdown, reference DOI checking via the Crossref API, repository analysis, license detection, language detection, lines of code count, Crossref XML generation, DOI minting, paper hosting, reminder emails for overdue reviews, and final publication are all handled by software.

The only human steps are scope decisions, reviewer matching, reading the paper, and a final proofread before acceptance.

Subheading.

Loosely coupled components.

A Rails web app for submission intake and dashboards.

an editorial bot framework, Buffy, a Pandoc-based document production pipeline, Inora, that produces PDF, HTML, JartsXML, CrossrefXML, and CFF from Markdown source, and a GitHub repository for archival storage with CI workflows for compilation and DOI deposit.

Each component can be replaced independently.

And we must talk about those lethal consequences.

The commercial industry loves to quote a remarkably low death rate for the mountain, but that widely circulated death rate traces back to a phantom 2004 paper that does not even exist in the PubBed database or in Crossref, either by author or by full title.

So it's made up.

We are not going to validate a ghost statistic.