Talk:WikiJournal of Medicine

From Wikiversity
Latest comment: 9 months ago by Maneesh in topic Publication Schedule?
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Discussions may also take place at the
public mailing list

SHERPA/RoMEO[edit source]

I've submitted to the details for WikiJMed to SHERPA/RoMEO via the journal submission form. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:50, 2 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Great! Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 15:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

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.

Below is a brief summary from the Association for Psychological Science (APS). The National Academies pre-publication full report is available as a print book, PDF, or to read online.

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.

To read the new National Academies report Reproducibility and Replicability in Science, click here.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

BASE[edit source]

The journal is now indexed in BASE via DOAJ. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 06:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Great! Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 15:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

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."

In the editorial board of WikiJMed, there are 2 members at the end of their terms: Carl Fredrik Sjöland and Mike Nicolaije.

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)

T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 12:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

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 (discusscontribs) 14:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Dyslexia article[edit source]

I had some concerns about the Dyslexia article. The authors responded promptly, politely, and professionally to the concerns I (and others) posted.

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.)


Mark   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 21:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

Bylaws[edit source]

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."

Thanks, --DannyS712 (discusscontribs) 00:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

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 (discusscontribs) 10:34, 1 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

PMC aplication[edit source]

Extended content
WikiJMed PubMed Central application
AppliedMarch 2020
RejectedMarch 2020
Re-appliedApril 2021
RejectedNovember 2021
Application tracker

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

Journal Information[edit | edit source]

  1. Title
    • WikiJournal of Medicine
  2. Sponsoring organization name (optional)
    • None
  3. Country/Territory
    • USA
  4. Publication start year
    • 2014
  5. Publication frequency
    • Continuous
  6. Estimated number of peer-reviewed articles per year
    • 6
  7. In what format is the journal published?
    • Electronic-only
  8. ISSN (print) and/or ISSN (electronic)
    • 2002-4436
  9. Is the entire journal Open Access?
    • Yes

Publisher information[edit | edit source]

  1. Parent or related companies, and/or subsidiary organizations associated with the organization (include the names, URLs and relationship to applicant)
    The journal publisher, WikiJournal User Group, is a Wikimedia Foundation affiliate, but we enjoy complete editorial independence.
  2. How do you select editors for your journal(s)?
    Editors submit a public application as either Editorial board member or Associate editor. Associate editors assist in peer review coordination. Editorial board members do this in addition to journal strategy and making final consensus decisions on article publication.
    Editors are voted in by the editorial board based on three areas of previous experience:
    Professional experience (clinical, research etc)
    Publishing experience (editorial etc)
    Open experience (open access/knowledge/data participation)
    All previous applications are available at
  3. Provide a summary for each member of the publisher's senior management team (e.g., executive editor, publishing director, managing editor, ethics manager, etc.).
    • We are a not-for-profit organisation. We are all volunteers. Our key leaders are as follows.
    • Mikael Haggstrom
      • Responsibilities: Editor in Chief; Treasurer, domain and email administrations, strategy
      • Prior experience in scientific publishing: The creator and editor-in-chief of WikiJournal of Medicine in 2014, the first WikiJournal.
      • Membership in professional associations: Physician, pathology department, NU Hospital Group, Uppsala Sweden
    • Gwinyai Masukume
      • Responsibilities: Assistant Editor in Chief; Responsibilities include strategy, indexing, peer review, social media engagement, compiling and analysing metrics
      • Prior experience in scientific publishing: On the founding board of the WikiJournal of Medicine, the first WikiJournal. Co-authored/authored more than 30 PubMed indexed articles including some in the world's leading journals like the Lancet, BMJ and Nature.
      • Membership in professional associations:
    • Eric Youngstrom
      • Responsibilities: Editorial Board member
      • Prior experience in scientific publishing: Editorial board membership of Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, Psychological Assessment, Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Professional Psychology: Science and Practice. Ad hoc reviewer for more than 90 psychology, psychiatry, and medical journals. Author of more than 300 peer reviewed articles, and reviewer of more than 400. Google Scholar h-index = 76.
      • Membership in professional associations: Currently member of the American Psychological Association (fellow), Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies (fellow), Society for Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology (past president, twice; fellow), Society for Quantitative and Qualitative Methods (President, fellow), International Society for Bipolar Disorders (Vice President for Education), Society for Clinical Psychology (fellow), Association for Psychological Science (fellow).
    • Roger Watson
      • Responsibilities: Editorial Board member
      • Prior experience in scientific publishing: Editorial board member: Journal of Advanced Nursing; Nursing Older People; International Journal of Older People Nursing; Nurse Author & Editor; Journal of Preventive Medicine and Hygiene. Editor-in-Chief of Journal Clinical Nursing, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Advanced Nursing, Editor, Nursing Open. Google Scholar h-index = 59.
      • Membership in professional associations: Memberships: Academia Europae; International Association of Nursing Editors. Fellowships: Royal College of Nursing of the United Kingdom; American Academy of Nursing; Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh; Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland (Faculty of Nursing & Midwifery); European Academy of Nursing; National Conference of University Professors.
    • Thomas Shafee
      • Responsibilities: Editorial Board member
      • Prior experience in scientific publishing: Editorial board member of PLOS Genetics (instigated and oversee the 'topic pages' format that enables some PLOS-Wikipedia integration). Published 28 articles on evolution & biochemistry topics, as well as on wikipedia, wikidata, and academic publishing. Published letters in both Nature and Science. Invited speaker at Australian Scholarly Publishing Association annual conference and Australian Open Access Strategy Group.
      • Membership in professional associations: Senior Officer of Research Data Outputs at La Trobe University, Melbourne and honorary research fellow at La Trobe University. Member of Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution (SMBE), Cambridge philosophical society, and Association for Interdisciplinary Meta-research & Open Science.

Language information[edit | edit source]

  1. Are all articles published fully in English?
    • Yes

Journal details and Policies[edit | edit source]

  1. Journal website URL
  2. Aims and scope (URL)
  3. Names and Affiliations of the Editorial Board (URL)
  4. Editorial policies (URL)
  5. Peer Review Process (URL)
  6. Advertising policy
  7. Research ethics policy (URL)
  8. Informed consent policy (URL)
  9. The process for handling cases requiring corrections, retractions, and editorial expressions of concern (URL)
General Publisher Information
  1. Organization Address
    • WikiJournal User Group, USA
  2. Publisher website (URL)
  3. Business Structure
    • Not-for-profit
  4. Names and titles of organization owner (if applicable) and executives
    • N/A
  5. Parent or related companies, and/or subsidiary organizations associated with the organization
    • Registered User Group of the Wikimedia foundation
  6. (include the names, URLs and relationship t** applicant)

Publisher Policies[edit | edit source]

  1. Editorial policies (URL)
  2. Peer review policy (URL)
  3. Advertising policy (URL)
  4. Research ethics policy (URL)
  5. Informed consent policy (URL)
  6. The process for handling cases requiring corrections, retractions, and editorial expressions of concern (URL)

Process and example guidance questions[edit | edit source]

Evaluation and Setup Process
0) Pre-Application Requirements
  • The journal must have a properly registered ISSN (i.e., a confirmed record for the journal in the official Register of the ISSN International Centre).
  • The journal must be able to provide NLM with immediate access to the content at a publisher or third-party site, as required by NLM's Electronic Resources policy.
  • A minimum of 25 peer reviewed articles (e.g., original research or review articles, clinical case reports) must be published in final form.
  • The journal must meet PMC's language guidelines.
  • NLM expects publishers to have at least a two-year history of quality scholarly publishing in the life sciences. NLM may consider an application from a publisher that has been publishing scholarly content for less than two years if there is evidence that the management and individuals responsible for editorial quality and operations have adequate experience in comparable positions at other organizations. Such applicants must still meet all the journal requirements outlined in this section.
1) Submit Application
  • Journal title and ISSN
  • Date of first publication and publication frequency
  • Journal website URL
  • Links to the editorial board; editorial policies; peer review process; and policies on Conflict of Interest, Human and Animal Rights, and Informed Consent
  • Publisher name and information about its management, qualifications, and publishing policies
2) Initial application screening
  • Peer-reviewed with a clearly stated peer-review policy
  • Publish generally within the biomedical and life sciences
  • The affiliations of the editors and authors should reflect the journal’s scope and demonstrate editorial independence and diversity (scope details)
  • Journals should primarily consist of the following article types:
    • Original research & review articles
    • Clinical case reports
    • Data descriptor articles that point to a dataset
    • Descriptions of clinical or surgical procedures
3) Scientific Quality Review
  • 'Thorough review of the journal information, policies, and content'
4) Technical Evaluation
5) Pre-Production
6) Live Release
PMC Quality Assessment example guidance questions consideration
Journal policies
  • Are the journal’s aims and scope clearly stated and adhered to?
  • Is the peer review process explicit and sufficiently detailed?
  • Are the journal’s ethical policies clearly stated and adhered to?
  • Are commercial sponsorships clearly addressed (i.e., do not raise questions about objectivity of published content)?
  • Do authors consistently disclose financial conflicts of interest?
Article content
  • Are the study aims clearly stated and logical?
  • Is the rationale/justification for conducting the study clear?
  • Are the methods described in sufficient detail so that the experiment could be reproduced?
  • Is the study design robust and appropriate to the stated aim?
  • Are the conclusions drawn supported by the data?
  • Is the discussion section critical and comprehensive?
  • Are the references appropriate in number and up-to-date?
  • Are statements supported appropriately by parenthetical citations?
Figure and table quality
  • Are figures and tables well-constructed and of sufficiently high resolution (i.e., not blurry)?
  • Are figures and tables well-annotated and easy to read and interpret?
Language quality (i.e., English editing)
  • Is the writing clear, concise, and logical?
  • Does the language impede scientific meaning or cause confusion?
Formatting and organization
  • Do articles of the same type (e.g., original research) follow a consistent structure, outlined in the instructions for authors?
  • Are there indicators of sufficient editorial attention, as evidenced by the elimination of editorial errors (e.g., incorrectly numbered sections, mislabeled tables/figures)?
Editorial board and authorship
  • Are full names and affiliations of journal’s editors provided?
  • Do editors and authorship accurately reflect journal scope?
  • Is there sufficient diversity between the editorial board and the authorship of articles?
Publication schedule
  • Does the journal keep to its stated publication schedule?
  • Does the publication frequency and volume demonstrate long-term sustainability?

Submission[edit | edit source]

I have now submitted the above items using the application form (tracking number = NJA-29863). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 23:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Rejection (too early)[edit | edit source]

Pubmed central has responded stating that:

"At this point, the WikiJournal of Medicine does not have enough primary content to be evaluated for PMC participation. For publishers with at least a two-year history of quality scholarly publishing in the life sciences, a minimum of 25 peer reviewed articles (e.g., original research or review articles, clinical case reports) must be published in final form before you apply. You can find more details in our application instructions."
I have responded to clarify:
"Could I confirm, is there a set proportion of the published content that must be primary research articles? We have a large proportion of review articles, however all content is peer reviewed, and we note that several other reviews-focused publishers are indexed in PMC (most notably Annual reviews). The applications requirements page indicates that the requirement is “A minimum of 25 peer reviewed articles (e.g., original research or review articles, clinical case reports)”."
T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 10:09, 31 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
PMC confirmed that they do not count the figure reviews and gallery reviews, so we are currently only at 20 eligible items. Can resubmit once threshold is reached. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 22:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Resubmission[edit | edit source]

Resubmission to PMC via application form. (tracking number = NJA-34990). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 01:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

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))Reply

NLM Review Summary

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.

Reviewers’ Comments

Article quality is variable.

The concerns with the scientific and editorial quality include:

  1. Reviews that did not contain substantive summaries and analysis of recent research in a field, and one (#1) that contained a large amount of self-citation.
  2. A case report (#5) that did not adequately adhere to the CARE case report guidelines.
  3. Multiple recent articles have been “updated” due to copyright/plagiarism concerns. However, a separate notice of correction was not published, consistent with relevant best practices.
  4. Articles with discrepancies between the numbers reported in the text versus in figures (e.g. article #3, Figure 1; article 4, Figure 1).
  5. Statements that were made without appropriate citations.
  6. The journal publishes few articles annually.
  7. When articles are adapted from Wikipedia, non-author contributors are listed as authors under “et. al” rather than listing them under the acknowledgements section in line with relevant best practices.

Some articles were found to be of good quality.

Examples of Articles Reviewed
  1. Epidemiology of the Hepatitis D virus
  2. Comparison between the Lund-Browder chart and the BurnCase 3D® for consistency in estimating total body surface area burned
  3. Emotional and Psychological Impact of Interpreting for Clients with Traumatic Histories on interpreters: a review of qualitative articles
  4. Mealtime difficulty in older people with dementia
  5. Incidental Finding of Complete Bilateral Persistent Sciatic Arteries: A Case Report
  6. An overview of Lassa fever
  7. Hepatitis E
  8. Working with Bipolar Disorder During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Both Crisis and Opportunity
  9. Viewer interaction with YouTube videos about hysterectomy recovery
  10. Orientia tsutsugamushi, the agent of scrub typhus
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 (discusscontribs) 14:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Biosthmors. I believe that we submit back-issues up to two years to them (relevant policy). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 03:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Twitter share button code[edit source]

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)Reply

Done! Luckily an easy fix to {{share}}. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 00:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

SCOPUS[edit source]

WikiJMed to be indexed in SCOPUS. You can see the application and process here. Also announced variously on twitter and FB. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 01:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

WikiLMed is now indexed in Scopus with an ID 21101024226. It will be good to link on the journal home page. Chhandama (discusscontribs) 05:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Chhandama: Good suggestion. I also took the opportunity to do a few additional layout updates T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 05:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

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."[1]

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.[2]

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.[3] 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.[4]

Here are some recommended writing resources to help you write articles that make a difference.


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").

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. "Tips & Tools." The Writing Center.

Writing resources: Wikipedia[edit source]

Basic copyediting

Use clear, precise and accurate terms

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. . COMMENT: The best for pithy definitions. Dictionary. . 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). . 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), . 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.

References[edit source]


  1. "Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors". Wikipedia. 2021-01-08. 
  2. Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 7th ed., (Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, 2020), 111.
  3. 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), s.v. "pithy", ("pithy adjective ... 2 : a : containing much meaning and substance in a terse concentrated form : brief and to the point : full of significance : meaty").
  4. Search results for "professional copy editor": Google | Bing | DuckDuckGo

Thank you for considering my recommendation.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 07:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply
I agree with everything you wrote. :0)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

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 (discusscontribs) 21:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@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)Reply

Wikipedia integrated[edit source]

What does it mean Wikipedia integrated? I don't see any explanation, what does it mean or how it works. --Juandev (discusscontribs) 09:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

I see, thanks for the explanation. --Juandev (discusscontribs) 16:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

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 (discusscontribs) 06:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

Recruiting technical editors[edit source]

We are hiring new technical editors for the journals. Please see this job posting for details. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

The application period is now closed, and we are assessing existing applications. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 19:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

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.

I recommend to replace the link to Rubriq to a link to another service that works (if any) or remove this advise altogether. --Maxim Masiutin (discusscontribs) 21:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

When trying to reach Rubriq, I was redirected to Research Square. I'm not sure it's interchangeable though, so I've simply removed the Rubriq option from the editorial guidelines. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 19:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

The links to PubMed Central (PMC) are generating incorrectly[edit source]

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

In contrast, the links from the same template on Wikipedia are generated correctly, see

Maxim Masiutin (discusscontribs) 11:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Proposal to introduce "Inactivity removal policy" to the bylaws[edit source]

There is an ongoing discussion to propose introducing an inactivity removal policy for editorial board members. Full details can be viewed here. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Double DOI to same article[edit source]

I came across WikiJournal of Medicine/The Kivu Ebola Epidemic, which has two DOIs (10.15347/WJM/2021.005 and 10.15347/WJM/2022.001) both pointing to it. I suspect the 2021.005 is wrong, since the article was accepted in April 2022. Not quite sure how to delete an DOI. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:09, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi OhanaUnited. DOIs can't be deleted but they can be aliased, which designates one of them as primary DOI and the other as the secondary DOI. Then, we just go ahead and display the primary one. I believe this process is fairly straightforward as outlined here for anyone with access to the Crossref depositor credentials. There appears to be one other example of this, with 10.15347/wjm/2015.001 and 10.15347/wjm/2014.013 both pointing to the same article. —Collin (Bobamnertiopsis)t c 12:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
Fixed both. Thanks @Bobamnertiopsis for spotting the second pair of DOI conflict. OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Backlog at WikiJournal of Medicine/Potential upcoming articles[edit source]

I fear that due to Athikhun Suwannakhan and/or possibly other editors becoming inactive, a number of articles (including mine, see context here)) have been stalled. Can someone take them over? Piotrus (discusscontribs) 15:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

@OhanaUnited Ping... is anyone able to look into this? Piotrus (discusscontribs) 14:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Piotrus: Athikhun wouldn't be inactive, as I co-presented alongside with him in-person at the EduWiki Conference. @Athikhun.suw:, do you have a status update for this submission? It appears to be stalled at the final decision stage by the editorial board. I do know that the handling editor is heading to China for 3 weeks and will be unresponsive to emails. As for other stalled submissions, one of them was my fault and I did a follow-up in March but didn't hear back from the author (and didn't mark the status in the "Notes" field). I send a last follow-up reminder email and gave the author a 10-day deadline to respond. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
@OhanaUnited @Athikhun.suw An update would be appreciated. We are now half a year at the stage the article, as far as I understand (given the positive reviews) should be simply published? Piotrus (discusscontribs) 04:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Rwatson1955, can you take a look please? OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Piotrus: FYI, your article has been accepted. The backend is processing the updates to reflect the acceptance status. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
@OhanaUnited Thank you for the update! Piotrus (discusscontribs) 02:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Publication Schedule?[edit source]

Are there any editors that can describe the publication schedule? I ask because it has been a few months since an article of mine has been finalized:

It doesn't show up on the front page or in the "upcoming articles" list, making it difficult for users to find. I would imagine it would make sense to have a rolling front page for publications. Things look rather dead for a journal from the front page, and there is at least this article that has been ready to go for months. It would make more sense to publish articles to the front page faster, attracting more attention and hopefully higher quality submissions etc. Maneesh (discusscontribs) 16:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply