Talk:WikiJournal of Medicine

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Discussions may also take place at the
public mailing list


SHERPA/RoMEO[edit]

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)

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

Consensus Report on Reproducibility and Replicability in Science (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine)[edit]

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering. Reproducibility and Replicability in Science, 2019. https://doi.org/10.17226/25303.

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]

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)

BASE[edit]

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

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

Board member re-elections[edit]

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)

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)

Dyslexia article[edit]

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.)

Thanks!

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

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)

Bylaws[edit]

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)

PubMed Central application[edit]

WikiJMed recently hit the baseline requirements for PMC application so application drafting can begin below.

Specific requirements[edit]

Application questions per https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/core/assets/publisherportal/files/PMC_Publisher_Portal_Questions.pdf

Contact Information
  • Name and email address of person submitting and/or monitoring the application
Journal Information
  1. Title
    • WikiJournal of Medicine
  2. Sponsoring organization name (optional)
    • None
  3. Country/Territory
    • USA
  4. Publication start year
    • 2012
  5. Publication frequency
    • Continuous
  6. Estimated number of peer-reviewed articles per year
    • 5.4
  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
Language information
  1. Are all articles published fully in English?
    • Yes
Journal details and Policies
  1. Journal website URL
    • www.WikiJMed.org
  2. Aims and scope (URL)
  3. Names and Affiliations of the Editorial Board (URL)
  4. Editorial policies (URL)
  5. Peer Review Process (URL)
  6. Policies on Conflict of Interest, Human and Animal rights, and Informed Consent (URL)
  7. Data sharing policy (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)
Editorial Management
  1. A description of the process by which editors are selected for journal(s).
    • ...
  2. Management team members
    • All or just selection? ...
    • Name and title
    • Responsibilities
    • Prior experience in scientific publishing
    • Membership in professional associations
Publisher Policies
  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]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/pub/addjournal/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/pub/journalselect/

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?