Talk:WikiJournal of Medicine/Intestinal epithelium

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Abstract: New Knowledge in Paper should be highlighted[edit]

The abstract should contain at least a sentence about

  • the new findings, results from an analysis about the intestinal epithelium OR
  • if it is a consideration of a large number of publications (meta analysis) and identify common results and/or contradictory results in a synthesis perspective and discuss the findings of your consideration. Purpose of such a paper is synthesis of fragmented distributed knowledge about a topic in many papers.
  • present a new methodology to analyze the intestinal epithelium, ...

Readers will better understand, what new knowledge they could gain from reading the proposed paper. --Bert Niehaus (discusscontribs) 09:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Bert Niehaus for your interest in my preprint article. I'm a new contributor and this is my first article. I have, however, contributed substantially to Wikipedia. I look forward to bringing work from Wikipedia, strengthening it through a peer review and making it a more valuable and trusted resource. In fact, I was invited by Evolution and evolvability to contribute this article.
In reply to your specific comments regarding the abstract: Yes, your suggested changes would be necessary if this article was intended to be a research article or a focused review but in fact the intent is to create an encyclopedic article which generally follows Wikipedia format (see: WikiJournal_of_Medicine/Publishing). Again, thank you for your interest. --McortNGHH (discusscontribs) 16:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for clarification McortNGHH, that makes sense. Excuse me for my misleading comment. Wikiversity is a platform for learning. Encyclopedic articles aggregate scientific work and make it more accessible and comprehensive to learners. May be the default template could include the Publication Formats: Encyclopedic Review Article or Publication Formats: ... directly under mentioning the authors. Of course this might violate the defined format for the WikiJournal of Medicine, but it helps readers to have a clear understanding of what they can expect when they read the article. May be that is more a question for the editorial board. Thank you for supporting the WikiJournal concept. --Bert Niehaus (discusscontribs) 14:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment for Consideration in Editorial Board[edit]

added as example the publication format in the article header

 ... 
 |journal     = WikiJournal of Medicine
 |pub_format  = Encyclopedic Review Article
 ...

The variable pub_format is not used as attribute in template for the articles currently, so the injection of publication format with pub_format does not change anything in layout. If the template is changed in the future, the classification of the paper pub_format can be displayed consistently in all articles. An other option is to add a category to the paper Encyclopedic Review at the bottom of the paper. This just a recommendation if that makes sense to you and the community. --Bert Niehaus (discusscontribs) 15:50, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Benefit of Paper[edit]

Looking at the paper from the angle of mathematical and computer science modelling, then the benefit of this paper is, that I am able to understand the cross-disciplinary interface between medicine and modelling and to derive better modelling approaches if I understand the background of what is modelled better without a medical background. That can be extended Pharmacology to approach a treatment of the intestinal epithelium and restore its integrity. The section about "Importance for Human Health" is for me a key to understand the purpose of the document inside medicine as an outsider - well done. Would like to see in Conclusions of the paper, where the authors see the benefit at the interface to other disciplines. Inside medicine "Importance for Human Health" describes that clearly as benefit of the paper - even for a mathematician and computer scientist.

WHO - Clean Care Safer Care - Template[edit]

As a learning resource I like the WHO approach for Clean Care Safer Care.

  • This paper can be analogy for learning the background information for understanding diagnosis and treatment procedures.
  • Self-assessment framework can be implemented based on the content of the Encylopedic Article. Reference to Wikiversity Quiz Help page might be an option to use the paper as a peer-reviewed background information for a learning resource
  • Explore Low-cost treatment options for remote areas in developing countries. Due to missing expertise for IBD will try to explain an optional benefit with Buruli Ulcer (BU). Could be mentioned in "Conclusion of Paper". For Buruli Ulcer (BU) as neglected tropical diseases Junghanss et.al. explored the basic mechanisms and clinical applications for modification of host–pathogen interaction in Mycobacterium ulcerans disease (BU) through heat treatment. In 2007/08 Junghanss et al. re-established heat treatment of Buruli ulcer using a Phase Change Material as heat source based on the work of Meyers et al. (1974) who showed that local application of 40°C for several weeks cured seven African patients from Buruli Ulcer. Especially when in remote areas standard therapy with Streptomycin and Rifampicin as primary treatment is not available, heat therapy and surgical removal are secondary options. Learning task for such a paper could be to analyse scientific evidence and implications of these treatment options in peer-reviewed medical journals.
Going back to this paper: Loss of integrity of the intestinal epithelium plays a key pathogenic role in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Are there similar approaches for IBD or does the paper support developement of such low-cost techniques. Encylopedic Article can be used guide readers to problem solving activities for IBD for remote areas in developing countries with no or very limited access to health care services.

Peer-Reviewing[edit]

Picking up the Buruli Ulcer (BU) example again, especially the background information for medical knowledge of learning resource should be based on quality assured content. So my appreciation for this paper to improve comprehension of IBD for a wider audience and thanks again to all authors and editors, that move the WikiJournal of Medicine forward.

Please regard my comments NOT as peer-review, because I am Mathematician and Computer Scientist. --Bert Niehaus (discusscontribs) 10:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)