Talk:WikiJournal of Medicine
Discussions may also take place at the
public mailing list
Consensus Report on Reproducibility and Replicability in Science (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine)[edit source]
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering. Reproducibility and Replicability in Science, 2019. https://doi.org/10.17226/25303.
Brief Summary[edit source]
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) has released a consensus report on reproducibility and replicability in science. The report defines key terms, examines the state of reproducibility and replicability in science, and reviews current activities aimed at strengthening the reliability of the scientific enterprise.
Reproducibility and Replicability in Science, funded by the National Science Foundation and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, concludes a thorough process that spanned more than a year. The report was authored by a multidisciplinary committee including APS William James Fellow Timothy Wilson (University of Virginia) and APS Fellow Wendy Wood (University of Southern California).
Recognizing that different fields use the same terms in different ways, the report established clear definitions of reproducibility and replicability. The report defines reproducibility as “achieving consistent results using the same input data, computational steps, methods, code, and conditions of analysis as prior studies—known as computational reproducibility within some fields.” Replicability is defined as “obtaining consistent results across studies that are aimed at answering the same scientific question but have obtained independent data.”
The report also assesses the current state of reproducibility and replicability in science.
“There is no crisis, but also no time for complacency,” said the chair of the committee, physician Harvey Fineberg, in an event marking the public release of the report.
The committee concludes that efforts are needed to strengthen both reproducibility and replicability in science, recognizing that these aspects are important but not always easy to attain. Given that replicability of individual studies can vary, the report notes, integrating multiple channels of evidence from a variety of studies is essential to understanding the reliability of scientific knowledge. The study also provides suggestions for how reproducibility and replication can be improved.
The report makes a variety of recommendations for scientists and researchers in presenting their research findings, suggesting that they:
- Convey clear information about computational methods and data products that support published reports
- Provide accurate and appropriate characterization of relevant uncertainties when they report research findings
- Provide a complete description of how a reported result was reached
- Avoid overstating the implications of research findings and exercise caution in their review of research-related press releases
- The report also includes recommendations for universities, science funders, journalists, policymakers, and other stakeholders; it also discusses how concerns about reproducibility and replicability might have the potential to affect how the public views the scientific enterprise.
Board member re-elections[edit source]
As per the bylaws of WikiJMed "Editorial Board Members shall serve four-year terms. There is no limit to the number of terms any individual Editorial Board Member may serve."
If you would like to extend your terms, we've previously simply used the same system as applications. I suggest doing this at Talk:WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Editors as the logical location (e.g. using this link)
- Dear T.Shafee and all,
- thank you for the notice. I am not applying for a new term. I enjoyed my time on the board, with as a highlight Wikimania 2016. For the moment I would like to work on other wikiprojects.
- All the best, Taketa (discuss • contribs) 14:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Dyslexia article[edit source]
I can't remember the precise context, but a couple of months ago I had planned to review the article mainly for copy editing, but also to make sure statements were adequately supported by their cited references. Unfortunately, time constraints resulted in my failure to follow through on that commitment.
At this point I don't think it's fair to the authors to drag out the review any longer. Thus, if the editors for the article—Eric Youngstrom and Jitendra Kumar Sinha—decide the article is "good to go", i.e., ready to move to Stages 6 and 7, then I support whatever decision the editors make.
Part of my reasoning is that if I or anyone else discovers problems with grammar, syntax, etc. (or citations not supporting a statement) then we can judiciously edit the Wikipedia article. Plus, it's a good article per Wikipedia standards, and it has received extensive review.
(I also posted what I write here to the listserv.)
- Note that User:Eyoungstrom stated on the mailing list that they will be doing the final proofread in the next 2 weeks. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:11, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Just wanted to point out the following confusing sections - I think there are a few words missing (my suggested additions are underlined):
- Article III Section 1
- "(a) The voting procedures in ARTICLE IV apply to:" - I suggest removing the "(a)", since this isn't part of the list, but merely introducing the list
- "(e) Amendment of these bylaws as specified in ARTICLE IX." - all the other entries have periods at the end
- Article III Section 2
- The (a)(b)(c)... suggest that voters meet one of the listed qualifications, but (g) says "Not an individual voting for herself/himself" - this suggests that anyone may vote, but only those that meet a different qualification can vote for themselves. I suggest explicitly stating that these are "or" qualifications, but that (g) is in addition to the other requirements
- Article VIII Section 2
- "The property of Wiki.J.Med. is irrevocably dedicated to charitable purposes and no part of the funds allotted by WikiJournal to Wiki.J.Med. shall ever inure to the benefit of any Editorial Board Member or to the benefit of any private individual other than compensation in a reasonable amount to its contractors for services rendered.
- Article VIII Section 3
- Upon the dissolution or winding-up of Wiki.J.Med., the resultant assets remaining after payment, or provision for payment, of all debts and liabilities of Wiki.J.Med. shall be distributed to WikiJournal. If this is not possible, the resultant assets shall be distributed to Wikimedia Foundation.
- Article VIII Section 4
- "No loans shall be contracted on behalf of the Wiki.J.Med. and no evidence of indebtedness shall be issued in its name unless authorized by a resolution of the Editorial Board."
Thank you, DannyS712, for pointing these out! I'm not sure they warrant a vote on a bylaws change right now, but I've added them to WikiJournal User Group/Bylaws/Proposed changes, so that they will be accounted for in the next update. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 10:34, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
PMC aplication[edit source]
PubMed Central application[edit | edit source]
WikiJMed recently hit the baseline requirements for PMC application so application drafting can begin below.
Specific requirements[edit | edit source]
Application questions per https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/core/assets/publisherportal/files/PMC_Publisher_Portal_Questions.pdf
Journal Information[edit | edit source]
Publisher information[edit | edit source]
Language information[edit | edit source]
Journal details and Policies[edit | edit source]
Publisher Policies[edit | edit source]
Process and example guidance questions[edit | edit source]
Submission[edit | edit source]
Rejection (too early)[edit | edit source]
Pubmed central has responded stating that:
Resubmission[edit | edit source]
Rejection (several issues flagged)[edit | edit source]
Summary: The journal has not passed their indexing review. Reapplication must wait until Nov 2023. I'm checking with the PMC Applications Team as to whether I can post their full comments here. If not, I'll paraphrase all their feedback. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 04:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC) (Update: Permission granted to share feedback. 05:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC))
WikiJournal of Medicine is an open access journal in medicine and biomedicine that enables “academic and medical professionals to contribute expert knowledge to the Wikimedia movement in the academic publishing format that directly rewards them with citable publications.” The journal is published continuously, and article types include research and reviews.
NLM noted that the scientific and editorial quality of articles was inconsistent. NLM would like to see an overall improvement in the quality of science, with reviews that are more critical and comprehensive with a focus on current research in the field, as well as case reports that better adhere to the CARE case report guidelines. Finally, NLM is concerned that the journal has not demonstrated the ability to sustain a consistent level of published articles over time.
Article quality is variable.
The concerns with the scientific and editorial quality include:
Some articles were found to be of good quality.
- Greetings T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo). If the next application to PMC is accepted, will all of the articles published in previous years also be indexed in PubMed/PMC? Thanks. Biosthmors (discuss • contribs) 14:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
This is not a major problem, but when someone can get to it ... The Twitter share button code for the recent (and very good!) Hepatitis D article has the old Twitter handle (@WiJouMed) in the code. That just needs to be changed to @WikiJMed. Thanks! - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 14:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- WikiLMed is now indexed in Scopus with an ID 21101024226. It will be good to link on the journal home page. Chhandama (discuss • contribs) 05:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Add "Quality prose" to Author guidelines[edit source]
I highly recommend that we add a new "Quality prose" section to the Author guidelines (for both Research and Review articles). Here is a draft of such a section:
Quality prose[edit source]
Manuscripts submitted to the WikiJMed should exhibit clear, correct, concise, comprehensible, and consistent writing. Articles should "say what they mean and mean what they say."
As the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association states:
The main objective of scholarly writing is clear communication, which can be achieved by presenting ideas in an orderly and concise manner. ... Precise, clear word choice and sentence structure also contribute to the creation of a substantive, impactful work.
Although WikiJMed editors will carefully review manuscripts for quality prose, we do not provide a copy editing service. In other words, submit a manuscript only after you know that your article exhibits pithy prose. How do you know that your prose passes muster? Ask one or two colleagues known for writing well to review your manuscript. Also seriously consider hiring a professional copy editor to review your manuscript and offer recommendations.
Here are some recommended writing resources to help you write articles that make a difference.
WRITING RESOURCES[edit source]
Writing resources: Books[edit source]
Garner, Bryan A. Garner's Modern English Usage. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016.
Stein, Sol. Stein on Writing. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1995.
Strunk, William Jr., and E. B. White. The Elements of Style. 4th ed. New York: Longman, 1999.
Zinsser, William. On Writing Well. 7th ed., rev.. New York: Harper Collins, 2006.
Writing resources: Online writing labs[edit source]
Purdue University. Purdue Online Writing Lab ("Purdue OWL"). https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/purdue_owl.html
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. "Tips & Tools." The Writing Center. https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/
Writing resources: Wikipedia[edit source]
Use of "refers to" and related phrases such as "relates to".
Writing resources: Dictionaries[edit source]
Dictionaries: Free online[edit source]
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language Online. https://ahdictionary.com/ . COMMENT: The best for pithy definitions.
Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary. https://www.merriam-webster.com/ . COMMENT: Solid, reliable definitions.
Oxford Languages via Google. Search Google for the word or, if you do not see a definition right away, search for the word + "definition". COMMENT: Fast & reliable. Not as comprehensive as Merriam-Webster. Not as concise as American Heritage.
Dictionaries: Subscription-based online[edit source]
Oxford English Dictionary (OED Online). https://www.oed.com/ . COMMENT: The best for etymology; eloquent.
Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged, ed. Philip B. Gove (Springfield, MA: G. & C. Merriam, 1961, 1993, periodically updated as Merriam-Webster Unabridged), https://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/unabridged/ . COMMENT: Exquisitely written and comprehensive.
Dictionaries: Print books[edit source]
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. 5th ed., rev. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2018. (Usually marketed as "50th Anniversary edition.")
Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged. Edited by Philip B. Gove. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, 1961, rev. 1993.
Dictionaries: General comment[edit source]
There are other good dictionaries. Find two or three you prefer by comparing definitions and related material over time.
- I agree with adding a quality prose / readability guideline to WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Publishing#General_guidelines (or as its own section). I also think it's worth including something similar for the sister journals, since it's pretty broadly relevant, so I'll also format up something to add to the central WikiJournal_User_Group/Publishing page. The specific resources might be collapsed, linked out to, or footnoted so as not to make it too long, but make sure the material is available. I'm also a big fan of Gopen & Swan's 'The Science of Scientific Writing', which I was introduced to when writing my thesis. We ideally want these sorts of issues dealt with by the authors earlier in the process than later. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 10:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Format of abstracts[edit source]
Is it allowed to change the format of WikiJournal of Medicine/Does the packaging of health information affect the assessment of its reliability? A randomized controlled trial protocol or WikiJournal of Medicine/Viewer interaction with YouTube videos about hysterectomy recovery to the format of WikiJournal of Medicine/Comparison between the Lund-Browder chart and the BurnCase 3D® for consistency in estimating total body surface area burned, because of the missing visual effect on the front page (missing ":")? Habitator terrae (discuss • contribs) 21:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Habitator terrae Ah, I see what you mean. When the front page strips out line returns to save space, the abstract section indicators become unclear. I think you're right that those two should be formatted to add colons (and indeed that should be the standard format going forward). Since it doesn't change the meaning of the content, it's fine to make the change directly. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 03:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia integrated[edit source]
- There are a few aspects to it. Firstly, some of the main publication formats are directly converted to Wikipedia pages (example), and some even from Wikipedia pages. Additionally, some articles have their images integrated into Wikipedia (example). There's some more in-depth info and history in this presentation from 2020. But good point that it's be worth linking out to more information. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 23:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Impact factor[edit source]
So it is said, that the Journal was not added to the Web of Science yet. Is this per request process or do they do it automatically or how does it work? --Juandev (discuss • contribs) 06:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- Getting into Web of Science remains our focus. It is a manual submission process so we will try again later. It is also important to note that there are multiple, well-known criticism over what impact factor stands for and what are its gaps. Moreover, different engines arrive at different results. For example, Google Scholar counts every citation including student thesis, conference abstracts and government reports (which means that the impact factor may be inflated). ResearchGate lets you upload conference poster, which can serve as a way self-cite your own publications and inflate your personal impact factor. On the other hand, Web of Science tend to underestimate impact factor because it excludes things like peer-reviewed book chapters. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Recruiting technical editors[edit source]
- The application period is now closed, and we are assessing existing applications. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 19:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Rubriq does not work since 2017[edit source]
Three is a sentence on the Wikijournal of Medicine Editorial guidelines page "As a last possibility, authors may pay for a peer review to be performed by Rubriq (with a request to abide by the journal's peer review guidelines)."
There was a link to a Wikipedia article on Rubriq: Rubriq
I have figured out that Rubriq does not work since 2017. I have edited the Wikipedia page but not the page on the Editorial guidelines of Wikijournal of Medicine.
Hello, @Evolution and evolvability: The links to PubMed Central (PMC) are generating incorrectly from the template cite journal|pmc=... in the WikiJournal of Medicine, for example, click the links to "PMC" at the references section at https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_Preprints/Androgen_backdoor_pathway
In contrast, the links from the same template on Wikipedia are generated correctly, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen_backdoor_pathway