Talk:WikiJournal Preprint/Systematic review

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

WikiJournal Preprints logo.svg

WikiJournal Preprints
Open access • Publication charge free • Public peer review

WikiJournal User Group is a publishing group of open-access, free-to-publish, Wikipedia-integrated academic journals. <seo title=" Wikiversity Journal User Group, WikiJournal Free to publish, Open access, Open-access, Non-profit, online journal, Public peer review "/>

<meta name='citation_doi' value=>

Article information

Authors: Jack Nunn[a][i]ORCID iD.svg , Steven Chang[a]ORCID iD.svg , et al.

Nunn, J; Chang, S; et al.. 

Plagiarism check[edit]

  • Artículo bueno.svg Pass. Report from WMF copyvios tool: 45.1% Plagiarism; please check the results here - most is associated with direct quotes, which are properly attributed, and with phrases such as 'Cochrane Collaboration', 'Cochrane Library', 'Cochrane Wikipedia Initiative', 'Search strategies' and other stock phrases; I don't think any action is required.Rwatson1955 (discusscontribs) 15:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment from author on plagiarism check results: I wrote the Cochrane page for how systematic reviews work, then cited this on the wiki page -I then worked (with others) to convert that wiki page to this journal article – adding more content – so the plagiarism check should only be picking up on cited sources that I’ve written myself and are all licensed under creative commons (deliberately so, so I could cite them!). I hope that helps – happy to say more if helpful! Jacknunn (discusscontribs) 02:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

First peer review[edit]

Review by Mark Hayter , University of Hull | Editor of Journal of Advanced Nursing
This review was submitted on , and refers to this previous version of the article

This is an excellent description of the systematic review. I am very glad it highlights that meta-analysis is not always a required component of systematic reviews. I would suggest that where meta-analysis in mentioned the authors also add qualitative meta-synthesis when discussing the potential for analysis of data. I also suggest that CASP is added to the section on quality appraisal.

Second peer review[edit]

WikiJournal PreprintJN - Jane Noyes.pdf


Reviewer-annotated pdf file.

Review by Jane Noyes , Bangor University | Cochrane methodologist and systematic reviewer. Lead convenor of the Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group; former co-Chair and now member of the Cochrane methods Executive, Member of the Cochrane Scientific Committee.
This review was submitted on , and refers to this previous version of the article

It is positive to see an entry on systematic reviews. The entry is however does not reflect contemporary thinking on SR methodology or methods. Overall the article is confused, the section headings do not always match the content and it is not always clear if the content is relevant for this context. The article tries but does not make a convincing attempt to cover all SR types, but the authors appear ill-equipped to do this. Some of the information reported is outdated and incorrect. In some sections information presented is partial and incomplete. The steer is to either refocus the article on the quant review and meta-analysis of intervention effect reviews (for which the authors seem best suited) or to enlist other co-authors who are experienced in other types of SRs to write the additional content and to populate with appropriate and contemporary references. I have attached an annotated version with comments for the authors to consider. .

Third peer review[edit]

WikiJournal review - Dan Bressington.pdf


Reviewer-annotated pdf file.

Review by Dan Bressington , Hong Kong Polytechnic University | Journal editor with systematic review experience
This review was submitted on , and refers to this previous version of the article

Review in attached PDF