From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Editorial decision on your article[edit source]

Comments by Dr. Michaël R. Laurent, MD PhD ,

These comments were submitted on , and refers to this previous version of the article

Dear Parthasarathi Narayanan,

Thank you for your submission. The Editorial Board of WikiJournal of Medicine has carefully reviewed and discussed your submission.

The manuscript was judged as not meeting criteria for consideration in our journal. Specifically, Editors agreed that it did not meet our guidelines regarding accuracy. Furthermore, the work is not sufficiently supported by references. The Editorial Board agreed that the limitations of your submission are not ones that can be addressed in a revision to make it publishable in WikiJournals.

Accordingly, we are returning a timely decision of Reject without possibility for re-submission.

We thank you for considering our Journal for your work. This decision will not influence our assessment of any further works, and we hope you will consider submitting to WikiJournals.

Sincerely yours, on behalf of the Editorial Board, Dr. Michaël R. Laurent, MD PhD

Thanks for valuable review performed by Board in assessing the article submitted by me.I follow the points projected by viewers which effect decline of further revision. N.PARTHASARATHI PARTHASARATHI.N (discusscontribs) 00:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

WikiJournal Policy[edit source]

@Stevenfruitsmaak, Evolution and evolvability, and Eyoungstrom: I'm not familiar with the policies of WikiJournal regarding attempts to blank and delete submitted articles. Please clarify. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 03:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@Dave Braunschweig: We'd not yet come to consensus on that (discussion here). We've so far agreed that they shouldn't be deleted by default, however it's also pretty rare for preprints to be deleted in other servers (arxiv, OSF, preprints.org etc). It messes up the tracking stats for Category:Article_preprints_declined_for_publication_by_a_WikiJournal. At the very least, I think we should retain the metadata and abstract, even if the rest of the content is blanked. How well does that fit with current wikiversity policies? T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 03:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
@Evolution and evolvability: We generally allow authors to request speedy deletion of their own works, but not once others have contributed to the effort. It could easily be argued that a reviewed WikiJournal article has contributions to it on the talk page, and therefore is not eligible for self-deletion.
Where I think we may need to consider and perhaps adapt would be roughly described under "right to be forgotten". Wikimedia has a standard approach to removing Personally Identifiable Information upon request. I think the article should stay, but it may become necessary to remove or anonymize any information that identifies the original author, if requested. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 03:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@PARTHASARATHI.N: Pending further discussion, you may not blank or delete this reviewed WikJournal article. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 03:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Rejected reviews will not tend people to read as they might think contents as inconsistent.That is why self deleted.Sorry for removing info."PARTHASARATHI.N (discusscontribs) 03:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)"

@Dave Braunschweig: as mentioned by T.Shafee above, we are still discussing the process. In general, if your work is submitted to a science journal, you have the right to request it to be deleted. Otherwise, if you try to submit it elsewhere, it is likely to be rejected due to detection of plagiarism. Maybe blanking isn't such a bad idea, perhaps with a template that this article is now rejected for publication, but that details (for transparancy and other reasons) can be found in the article history? Would that work from a Wikiversity general perspective? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)