Talk:WikiJournal of Medicine/History of penicillin
Add topic
WikiJournal of Medicine
Open access • Publication charge free • Public peer review • Wikipedia-integrated
This article has been through public peer review.
It was adapted from the Wikipedia page History_of_penicillin and contains some or all of that page's content licensed under a CC BY-SA license. Post-publication review comments or direct edits can be left at the version as it appears on Wikipedia.
First submitted:
Accepted:
Article text
PDF: Download
DOI: 10.15347/WJM/2021.003
QID: Q107303937
XML: Download
Share article
Email
| 
Facebook
| 
Twitter
| 
LinkedIn
| 
Mendeley
| 
ResearchGate
Suggested citation format:
Kholhring Lalchhandama (22 October 2021). "History of penicillin". WikiJournal of Medicine 8 (1): 3. doi:10.15347/WJM/2021.003. Wikidata Q107303937. ISSN 2002-4436. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiversity/en/1/1c/History_of_Penicillin.pdf.
Citation metrics
AltMetrics
Page views on Wikipedia
Wikipedia: This work is adapted from the Wikipedia article History of penicillin (CC BY-SA). Content has also subsequently been used to update that same Wikipedia article History of penicillin.
License: CC-BY-SA
Editors:Roger Watson 
(handling editor) contact
Mitchell Hammond
Luz Maria Hernandez-Saenz
Article information
Plagiarism check
Fail - Report from WMF Copyvio detector tool flagged 99.0% similarity and 'Violation Suspected'. Please see the results here [1] Rwatson1955 (discuss • contribs) 12:11, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
- Justification. The source to which similarity is detected (here) is a mirrored and exact replica of the Wikipedia page, verbatim, which I wrote. It directly links to the very Wikipedia page! Also note that similarity will indicate sourced quotes - there are few, which is not plagiarism. I would like to challenge this decision. Chhandama (discuss • contribs) 08:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Handling editor's response
Thanks - I have discussed with an editorial colleague and agree that the webpage which was shown as similar was taken from the existing Wikipedia. I had not noted that the article had been based on an existing Wikipedia page History of penicillin. I will proceed with seeking reviewers Rwatson1955 (discuss • contribs) 11:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Comments by handling editor
I have close edited and proof read the article. Rwatson1955 (discuss • contribs) 13:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Peer review 1
Review by Mitchell L. Hammond 
, Department of History University of Victoria (Canada)
These assessment comments were submitted on , and refer to this previous version of the article
The article is clearly written, thorough, and amply documented. The sequence of topics is suitable. In most respects it seems a very sound article. Three minor points:
1) Under ""Early History"" the article references the discovery of ""Salvarsan"" as the first antibiotic. The name for the arsenic compound is arsphenamine. Salvarsan was the name under which the product was sold. Arsphenamine was one of several arsenic-based compounds investigated after 1906. These also included atoxyl, which was used a bit earlier experimentally in Africa to destroy trypanosomes, although it was not made widely available (at least in Europe). The article might distinguish, in the first references, this group of chemical arsenic compounds from the naturally-occurring mould that forms the basis of penicillin. This point is already implicit but could be made explicit.
2) The sentence preceding footnote [11] could be more clearly written to indicate agency and spell out exactly what was known by whom.
3) Under ""Chemical analysis"" it is noted that Ernst Chain sought to avoid ""controversial names"" for penicillins. A very brief explanation could be added to clarify what possible controversy he tried to avoid.
- 21 July 2021
I appreciate the insightful comments and suggestions. They are used for improvements as:
1) Development of arsenic compound and distinction from penicillin is elaborated; however, atoxyl is ignored as it is (was) not used as an antibiotic.
2) Statement before the footnote is further explained and specified.
3) The nature of controversial naming is explained with additional information and references.
T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 05:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Peer review 2
reviewer-annotated pdf
Review by Luz Maria Hernandez-Saenz , University of Western Ontario | PhD History, Social History of Medicine specialisation
These assessment comments were submitted on , and refer to this previous version of the article
Comments on the article History of Penicillin
The article is very interesting but at some points reading was tedious and the narrative seemed to lose the piece’s focus. There were also grammar mistakes, unclear sentences, and in some cases irrelevant information.
Generally speaking, I made the following changes and/or suggestions:
-- Deleted information that was not relevant to the topic, distracted the reader and impeded the text to flow easily.
-- Added some suggestions in the text (as NOTE, in bold letters) with suggestions or questions.
-- Got rid of “But” at the beginning of sentences.
-- I assume the first section to be the introduction to the article (Lines 1 to 28). If it is, I suggest simplifying it and providing a very general description as the main text will include the details. This will prevent repeating the same information in the text. I included a summarized version at the end of the section (Lines 31 to 48).
-- In the sections “Early History” and “Early Scientific Evidence” the author lists discoveries and practices regarding penicillin but he/she fails to tie them directly to the main topic. (Lines 50 to 232). How did traditional practices and early discoveries contributed to the discovery and use of penicillin? Why these cases? Are they the only ones? If the cases listed did not influence the discovery of penicillin the author should clarify his/her reasons to include them. With some editing this section will strengthen the article in its entirety.
-- The article ends abruptly. A short conclusion would greatly improve it.
-- Lines 326 to 341 were NOT edited. They need to be re-crafted as they are confusing.
-- The section Development of Penicillin-derivatives (lines 581 to 608) was NOT edited.
- 12 October 2021
I really admire the reviewer's skill and meticulousness. I hope the suggested modifications are aptly incorporated in my revision.
Since the comments are detailed and many, I will not make point-by-point justification. The text is thoroughly revised, updated, and corrected, including the section "Development" which was not edited. But these two points need explanation:
- Where was Craddock? The answer is that he was not there, yet. There was a misinformation. He joined Fleming on 28 December, well after the discovery.
- EXPAND ON HODGKIN’S ROLE AND THE IMPORTANCE OF HER CONTRIBUTION Hodgkin only made X-ray diffraction study which is not particularly important in the pharmacology or development of penicillins. Her work is notable mainly in the light of her Nobel Prize as a part of her many achievements.
I would like to remind the reviewer that the article is meant for Wikipedia, which has certain policies such as to maintain neutral point of view and to avoid unsourced ideas or conclusion. And also that quotations marks are not used when the quoted paragraph is properly indented.
Rwatson1955 (discuss • contribs) 13:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- Revised as best as I could. Thank you for finding a very constructive reviewer. Chhandama (discuss • contribs) 08:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)