Talk:WikiJournal Preprints/Specialty-Specific Gynecology Operative Units Promote Cost-Effectiveness
Add topicThis article is an unpublished pre-print undergoing public peer review organised by the WikiJournal of Medicine.
You can follow its progress through the peer review process at this tracking page.First submitted:
Article text
QID: Q103896036
Suggested (provisional) preprint citation format:
Erica Robinson; Lara F. Bratcher Harvey; Elizabeth Alabi; Amanda Yunker. "Specialty-Specific Gynecology Operative Units Promote Cost-Effectiveness". WikiJournal Preprints. Wikidata Q103896036.
License: This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction, provided the original author and source are credited.
Editors:Thomas Shafee contact
Reviewers: (comments)Article information
This is the pre-publication public peer review for the article Specialty-Specific Gynecology Operative Units Promote Cost-Effectiveness
Plagiarism check
[edit source]Pass. Report from WMF copyvios tool indicates fully oringial content. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 01:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Initial editorial comments
[edit source]
Comments by Thomas Shafee ,
Discussion within the editorial board noted a few points that would be good to address before we send this out for peer review:
- Abstract: it would be useful to include the full names of the abbreviations CPT and PACU.
- Methods: It would be useful to note your search terms and strategy in the methods section used to identify the presence or absence of similar evaluations (relating to "To our knowledge, this is the first evaluation of specialty specific teams in the gynecologic literature").
- Discussion: It would be worth while referencing how this fits into the broader literature on the topic
- Additional info: Could you also include a funding statement (or 'no funding' if applicable).
Thank you for your comments, and your points have been addressed
Comments by Thomas Shafee ,
Re: methods point above, it would still be valuable to confirm the exact search terms used. This would make clear how comprehensive/appropriate the literature search was to support the claim.
- Note: The comment above relates to these changes. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 07:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Editorial note
[edit source]Contacted handling editor about lack of reviews