WikiJournal of Medicine/Peer reviewers: Difference between revisions
→Peer review guidelines{{anchor|guidelines}}: Kept copy internal |
|||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
==List of peer reviewers== |
==List of peer reviewers== |
||
When a submitted work does not have an appropriate peer reviewer in the corresponding medical specialty, there will be a [[WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Editors#Finding_peer_reviewers|search for external peer reviewers]]. |
When a submitted work does not have an appropriate peer reviewer in the corresponding medical specialty, there will be a [[WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Editors#Finding_peer_reviewers|search for external peer reviewers]]. |
||
*[[User:Medcwiki|Carlos Muniz]] |
*[[User:Medcwiki|Carlos Muniz]] |
||
*[[User:Athikhun.suw|Athikhun.suw]] |
*[[User:Athikhun.suw|Athikhun.suw]] |
||
*[[User:Ozzie10aaaa|Ozzie10aaaa]] |
*[[User:Ozzie10aaaa|Ozzie10aaaa]] |
||
*[[User:ashashyou|ashashyou]] |
*[[User:ashashyou|ashashyou]] |
||
*[[User:Asdofindia|Asdofindia]] |
*[[User:Asdofindia|Asdofindia]] |
||
*[[User:Apidium23|Apidium23]] |
*[[User:Apidium23|Apidium23]] |
||
*[[User:Jackpickard1985|Jackpickard1985]] |
*[[User:Jackpickard1985|Jackpickard1985]] |
||
Revision as of 13:56, 28 September 2016
WikiJournal of Medicine
Open access • Publication charge free • Public peer review • Wikipedia-integrated
www.WikiJMed.org
ISSN: 2002-4436
Frequency: Continuous
Since: March 2014
Funding: Wikimedia Foundation
Publisher: WikiJournal User Group
On social media
RSS feed
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Mailing list
 |
 |
 |
 |
2020:
Article in The Signpost
2019:
Presentation at Wikimania 2019
Presentation at American Psychological Association
Article in The Signpost
Article in the Wikimedia UK blog
2018:
Presentation at APO forum
Interview with Wikimedia Foundation
Winners of the best articles submitted in 2017
Gained COPE membership
Presentation at Wikimania 2018
Peer review in Wikijournal of Medicine is intended to both help authors to improve articles, as well the editorial board in deciding whether to include it in the journal. The process of finding and inviting appropriate peer reviewers for article submissions is largely done by collaboration on "a favour for a favour" basis, where authors should assist in finding appropriate peer reviewers for previously submitted works, as directed by the editorial board.
Confidentiality policies
Most authors have allowed their article submissions to the Wikijournal to be open-access in the wiki from the very beginning, but in some cases they prefer to have in confidential up to publication. Many journals do not accept submissions that have been in the open at any time, and thereby authors may be harmed by premature disclosure of any or all of an article submission's details. Peer reviewers must therefore keep such works confidential by restricting discussions about such articles to for example email communications, rather than talk page entries in Wikipedia or Wikiversity. Peer reviewers must not retain such works for their personal use.
Criteria
Peer reviewers need to fulfill the following criteria:
- Have public contact information, or be willing to be contacted by a Wikimedia volunteer by peer review verification if necessary, wherein only trusted participants know the identity.
- Have expertise in medicine, and be willing to provide credentials if inquired to do so.
- Be willing to state any conflicts of interests.
- Not be editorial board members of this journal.
Individuals not fulfilling these criteria are still welcome to comment on works in need of peer review, such as checking how well the references support their associated article entries. Such comments are meant to facilitate and supplement the proper peer review of articles.
It is possible to sign up to show interest in receiving notices when works are submitted to Wikijournal of Medicine, and can be specified to a particular field of expertise. This can be done by making an entry on the talk page, or email the editor-in-chief at haggstrom.mikael
wikiversityjournal.org (the latter also allows for more anonymous peer reviewing).
List of peer reviewers
When a submitted work does not have an appropriate peer reviewer in the corresponding medical specialty, there will be a search for external peer reviewers.
Article submissions needing peer review
(Currently none)
Peer review guidelines
Peer reviews to Wikijournal of Medicine can be written online on the corresponding Discuss page, or be emailed.
Peer reviews that are written online should include:
- A disclosure of conflicts of interests, or simply state "Conflicts of interest: none declared".
Emailed peer reviews should, in addition, include:
- The title of the work that is peer reviewed, preferably with a link to the page in Wikiversity
- Date of the peer review (or last date of peer review period)
- A licensing statement that allows usage in Wikiversity, such as "This text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike 3.0 Unported License" at the bottom.
Emailed peer reviews are sent to the editor-in-chief Mikael Häggström:
to: haggstrom.mikaelwikiversityjournal.org (or to the editor who sent a peer review invitation)
cc: contactwijoumed.org
Peer reviewers can choose to be anonymous or non-anonymous to the public. Being non-anonymous allows the peer reviewer to use the contribution directly as an academic merit, while anonymous peer reviewers may use services such as Publons to receive academic credit for their efforts. Being non-anonymous may possibly prevent the peer reviewer from freely criticizing the target work due to fear of appearing to discredit one or more authors.
Initial peer reviews should preferably be written within 3 weeks. Comments should be constructive, include both strengths and areas for improvement, and be referenced whenever possible. Otherwise, Wikijournal of Medicine has no strict rules regarding the structure and length of a peer review, since it appreciates every comment and suggestion for both potential and already included works. For example, length of peer reviews have varied from 65 words to approximately 700 words. Still, following are some guidelines.
General questions
Questions that can be answered in a peer review include:
- Originality: Will the article add to existing knowledge? This question is not relevant for review articles.
- Readability: Is the article easy to read and follow? Is the message clear?
- Conforming: Is the article written in accordance with the journal's author guidelines?
- References:
- Can they be regarded to support their associated article entries?
- Are they up to date?
- Completeness: Are there any glaring omissions of relevant work regarding the subject at hand?
For research articles
For research articles, the following additional questions may be answered:
- Introduction:
- Does it summarize what we knew before?
- Is it up do date?
- Does the introduction provide a rationale why the research at hand is needed?
- Does it provide a clear research question?
- Method:
- Is it described in sufficient detail?
- Is the study approach adequate in aiming to answer the research question?
- Were the participants adequately described?
- Were their conditions defined?
- Were inclusion and exclusion criteria described? Were these criteria adequate in selecting a proper group for the purpose of the research?
- Results:
- Was the research properly executed?
- Were there clear outcome measures?
- Are the results credible?
- Are the results well presented?
- Was the approach to data analysis appropriate?
- Does it help in answering the research question?
- Interpretation and conclusion:
- Is it adequately substantiated by the given data?
- Was the study up to ethical standards?
- Is patient consent commented?
- Is there appropriate protection of research subjects, including animals?
- Was there approval by an ethics committee or institutional review board?
- If not, is there an adequate explanation whether this was done or not?
- Limitations: Any omission?
- Abstract: Does it reflect the work in general?
- Supplemental files:
- Are these sufficient in including necessary information?
- Does information therein properly match what is in the manuscript?
- Should any information therein be reported in the manuscript?