Jump to content

Talk:WikiJournal Preprints/Endometrial cancer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikiversity
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Evolution and evolvability in topic Plagiarism check

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

Author: Emily Temple-Wood[i]

See author information ▼
  1. keilanawikiAt signgmail.com

Plagiarism check

[edit source]

Pass. WMF copyvio tool using TurnItIn. Short phrases such as "Risk factors for endometrial cancer include..." were similarly used in external pages, but not regarded as plagiarism. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 10:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Initial editorial review

[edit source]


Comments by Thomas Shafee ,
These editorial comments were submitted on , and refer to this previous version of the article

Overall the article is well written, with well-chosen figures. Before sending this for external peer review, I have a few minor formatting recommendations:

  1. The History and culture section is interesting but too short. It should either be expanded, merged or removed.
  2. For journal-style publication, figures should be numbered and each referred to in the main text.

Once the two above are done, I shall invite external peer reviewers to assess the content. Additionally, for publication, all the creative commons images will need their authors added to the |attribution= parameter (I've filled in fig 1, see previous publications for examples).

First peer reviewer

[edit source]


Review by Liane Deligdisch ,
These assessment comments were submitted on , and refer to this previous version of the article

The article by Emily-Temple-Wood et al on the vast subject of Endometrial Cancer contains important information and is documented by a rich bibliography. There are however numerous mistakes and confusion on certain subjects which have to be corrected. On page Here are the most important ones:

1. The diagnostic method for Endometrial Cancer is by Endometrial biopsy which is taken by Dilation and Curettage (D&C) from patients under anesthesia, usually in the OR setting. Another way to obtain endometrial tissue for diagnosis is by Endometrial aspirate (Vabra) done in the physician's office with no anesthesia. This method is quite reliable, but less than the D&C done with a sharp curette. The authors  do not mention Endometrial aspirate but say that "D&C has higher false negative than endometrial biopsy" which makes no sense!

2. On page 5 the text says "P53 or PTEN" . These are two very different tumor markers, not interchangeable, as the authors later explain, P53 being associated with high malignant potential tumors.

3. Also on page 5 Endometrial glandular dysplasia is mentioned as a precursor of cancer, The accepted precursor is endometrial hyperplasia with atypia which should be described and compared to hyperplasia without atypia, an important and very common diagnosis in women with vaginal bleeding who may or may not (more often) develop carcinoma. Precursors of Type I Endometrial Carcinoma are also designated as Endometrial Intraepithelial Neoplasia (EIN) and of Type II Endometrial Intraepithelial Carcinoma (EIC). This is a debated issue but if mentioned this is the correct way.

4. On page 9,top "Mixed  carcinomas have both Type I and Type II cells" is incorrect. Malignant Mixed Muellerian (or Mesodermal) Tumors also called MMMT consist of malignant epithelial (carcinoma) and malignant mesenchymal (sarcoma) types of tissue, which are homologous or heterologous and generally high grade neoplasms.

5. Statistics of Incidence and Mortality from 2012 should be updated.

6. On page 4 it is stated that smoking is a protective factor but no clear reference is given.

7. The illustrations of histopathologic sections (fig. 3 and 6) need  clear explanatory legends, as in the text the descriptions are insufficient. I suggest to illustrate  sections of  Type I and a Type II Endometrial Carcinoma.

Second peer review

[edit source]
reviewer-annotated pdf file.
reviewer-annotated pdf

Review by Shalini Rajaram ,
These assessment comments were submitted on , and refer to this previous version of the article

The reviewer submits suggested edits in the attached PDF