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)