Talk:WikiJournal Preprints/History of penicillin

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

Author: Kholhring Lalchhandama[a]ORCID iD.svg  , et al.

Kholhring Lalchhandama; et al., "History of penicillin", WikiJournal Preprints, Wikidata Q107303937




Plagiarism check[edit source]

Fail - Report from WMF Copyvio detector tool flagged 99.0% similarity and 'Violation Suspected'. Please see the results here [1] Rwatson1955 (discusscontribs) 12:11, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Justification. The source to which similarity is detected (here) is a mirrored and exact replica of the Wikipedia page, verbatim, which I wrote. It directly links to the very Wikipedia page! Also note that similarity will indicate sourced quotes - there are few, which is not plagiarism. I would like to challenge this decision. Chhandama (discusscontribs) 08:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Handling editor's response[edit source]

Thanks - I have discussed with an editorial colleague and agree that the webpage which was shown as similar was taken from the existing Wikipedia. I had not noted that the article had been based on an existing Wikipedia page History of penicillin. I will proceed with seeking reviewers Rwatson1955 (discusscontribs) 11:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments by handling editor[edit source]

I have close edited and proof read the article. Rwatson1955 (discusscontribs) 13:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Peer review 1[edit source]


Review by Mitchell L. Hammond Wikidata-logo.svg , Department of History University of Victoria (Canada)

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

The article is clearly written, thorough, and amply documented. The sequence of topics is suitable. In most respects it seems a very sound article. Three minor points:

1) Under ""Early History"" the article references the discovery of ""Salvarsan"" as the first antibiotic. The name for the arsenic compound is arsphenamine. Salvarsan was the name under which the product was sold. Arsphenamine was one of several arsenic-based compounds investigated after 1906. These also included atoxyl, which was used a bit earlier experimentally in Africa to destroy trypanosomes, although it was not made widely available (at least in Europe). The article might distinguish, in the first references, this group of chemical arsenic compounds from the naturally-occurring mould that forms the basis of penicillin. This point is already implicit but could be made explicit.

2) The sentence preceding footnote [11] could be more clearly written to indicate agency and spell out exactly what was known by whom.

3) Under ""Chemical analysis"" it is noted that Ernst Chain sought to avoid ""controversial names"" for penicillins. A very brief explanation could be added to clarify what possible controversy he tried to avoid.

Response

21 July 2021

I appreciate the insightful comments and suggestions. They are used for improvements as:

1) Development of arsenic compound and distinction from penicillin is elaborated; however, atoxyl is ignored as it is (was) not used as an antibiotic.

2) Statement before the footnote is further explained and specified.

3) The nature of controversial naming is explained with additional information and references.

T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 05:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)