Talk:WikiJournal of Medicine
- 1 News sources as citations
- 2 Mailing list
- 3 SCOPUS reapplication
- 4 SHERPA/RoMEO
- 5 Consensus Report on Reproducibility and Replicability in Science (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine)
News sources as citations
An editorial query was raised on a submitted article that the WikiJMed board discussed and I'm copying here. The article cites a number of news sources and the question was whether: Are news sources appropriate in a peer reviewed journal article on an event, or should the WikiJournal version rely (only) on peer reviewed articles, and What should be done for statements for which the only support is news sources? The consensus of the WikiJMed board discussion was:
- Where possible, reliable refereed scientific sources would be preferred by far (similar to WP:MEDRS)
- However, this article is an unusual case - Rapidly evolving out breaks in a setting with limited infrastructure are very challenging. It was noted that other journals have "relaxed" the usual rules when necessary (example)
- If there's absolutely no better source, besides newspapers, to convey a key point/concept, the author could write where relevant in the manuscript e.g. "Media reports state..." to indicate that the source is of a lower level of scrutiny.
- The board consensus is to handle subsequent similar situations on a case by case basis (avoiding blanket policies)
Hello. I recall signing up for the mailing list for this project a while back, but I don't recall ever getting any list-related email. Is there an active mailing list? I just clicked the above link about the mailing list, but it didn't take me anywhere that looked promising. A notification said 'There is no group named “wijoumed”.' Thanks. Biosthmors (discuss • contribs) 00:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Biosthmors: Aha, the list name is changed. We tried to migrate the list of members over to the new list, but there may have been an error. The new list is WikiJMed@googlegroups.com (to be the same format as the other journals) and you can sign up at this link. I'll also see if I can find an archive of the previous list members to test if any others were missed. I've corrected the link in the right hand template, but if you spot it anywhere else, please let me know (or edit directly)! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 01:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
In March 2017, WikiJMed applied to SCOPUS. Although they noted that it is an interesting concept, it was rejected as not be yet fully worked through:
- Not clear whether it would attract original articles or whether it is just a variant of Wikipedia on medical and health topics
- The associate editors were self-nominated
- The "publishing ethics" statement was merely a link to the COPE website
The 24-month waiting period before reapplication is now complete. I suggest we draft the reapplication below, in particular, the cover letter they request responding to the 2017 concerns.
Per application form:
- Cover letter addressing March 2017 concerns (PDF upload)
- Since 2017, the journal has made several major updates to it processes in order to increase its rigour:
- In addition to encyclopedic reviews, several additional article types have been published (meta analyses, original research, case studies, diagrams and galleries).
- Associate editors now apply with their credentials, and are now only brought on board after a vote. The voting process for associate editor applications has now been broaght in line with the same process for editorial boards.
- Fully-developed publication ethics statement also vetted by COPE (membership number JM13664). In particular, this also outlines the journal's position on some of the unique features of its publication format (e.g. author expectations of content ownership after it is copied to Wikipedia)
- Additionally we have improved our bylaws with advice from the WMF to make them more robust, and improved our public editorial guidelines to further improve transparency in the process.
- Since 2017, the journal has made several major updates to it processes in order to increase its rigour:
- Most recent articles (x9 PDF upload) or most recent issues (x3 PDF upload)
- Table of contents for a complete issue (x1 PDF upload)
- Aims & scope
- Adapted from WikiJournal_of_Medicine/About:
- WikiJMed is an open access journal in medicine and biomedicine published free of charge.
- The journal aims to ensure accurate medical and biomedical information is published in a way that maximises its public good. The journal has a particularly strong outreach and public impact focus via it's 'Wikipedia-integration' features: Articles that pass peer-review are published as a citable, indexed PDF, and suitable text and images are integrated into Wikipedia and related projects (with a link to the indexed PDF). The vast readership of Wikipedia results in a high effective impact of included works. It therefore 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. Peer reviews are published alongside articles for transparency and auditability.
- The journal's scope is medicine and biomedicine, broadly construed. The journal publishes both review articles and original research in various formats. The journal targets a broad population spanning from advanced researchers and clinicians to students and laypersons, wherein the latter can get quick explanations of advanced terms by in-line links to Wikipedia.
- Start year of current title
- Has this title undergone any name changes, mergers or splits (prev. names and dates)
- Yes, 2014-2016 Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, 2016-present WikiJournal of Medicine
- Contact emails
- Link to the publication ethics and publication malpractice statement
- Average number of research articles and review articles published per year
- 5.75 (25 over 4 years, 2014-2018)
- Are all articles published in English
- Do all articles have English-language abstracts and article
- Do the articles have references in Roman alphabet
- Which type of peer review applies to this title (editor review / Open peer review / Single-blind peer review / Double-blind peer review)
- Open Peer review
- What is the geographic distribution of editors of the title
- International - different continents (different continent / same continent / same country / same institution)
- Please list some examples of countries of editors (if any countries predominate, please indicate)
- Sweden, Ireland, USA x3, Australia, Belgium, India, UK, Palestine/Egypt
- Provide information about the main handling editor(s) of the title (x3) : Name, affiliation, country, online professional information
- Mikael Haggstrom, NU Hospital Group, Uddevalla, Sweden, https://www.linkedin.com/in/drhaggstrom?originalSubdomain=se
- Gwinyai Masukume, University College Cork, Ireland, https://www.improbable.com/about/people/GwinyaiMasukume.html
- Roger Watson, University of Hull, UK, https://www.hull.ac.uk/faculties/staff-profiles/roger-watson.aspx
- What is the geographic distribution of authors publishing in this title (different continent / same continent / same country / same institution)
- International - different continents
- Is the title (co-)published on behalf of a scientific society
- Does the serial title have DOIs which are registered with CrossRef
- Is the title already indexed in other bibliographic databases
- Does this title offer open access to its full-text content (yes / no / yes+DOAJ)
- Yes, registered with DOAJ
- Other comments / remarks
- In addition to the changes made in response to the specific comments given in March 2017, we believe that we have further developed the journal structure in all aspects. Our policies and process guidelines for editors have been refined and updated, in addition to our bylaws. We have expanded geographical diversity in our editorial board and maintained it in submitting authors. The editorial board aims to cover a range of expertise across medicine as well as open-access and wikimedia projects. The journals aim for impact in scholarly citations, Altmetrics, and wide general public readership via integrating content into Wikipedia. Given the very wide reach of the articles (readership >6.9 million per annum via Wikipedia) we are particularly cautious in our quality control. All plagiarism checks, peer reviews and editorial recommendations are public alongside the article.
SCOPUS Content policy and selection criteria
I'm pretty optimistic for the SCOPUS resubmission. The main detraction is probably the publication rate, however a number of articles are currently close to the end of the pipeline. Note that WikiJSci may be similarly eligible, but it is probably best to apply one at a time given the 24-month re-application wait time. WikiJMed is also eligible for PMC (criteria) and possibly SciELO, so we may start drafting that application soon as well. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 03:23, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- I support resubmission, as well as additional indexing, particularly PMC when we are eligible. However, I will not have the time myself to work on this, at least until the grant application and some tax work is done. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 15:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks to the editors, WJM seems to meet all the basic criteria of Scopus. But do not overlook this tiny clause: Have the three most recent journal issues or 9 articles plus a table of contents ready for uploading.... There are only 8 articles so far. So submission may be done after acceptance of new article. Chhandama (discuss • contribs) 09:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Consensus Report on Reproducibility and Replicability in Science (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine)
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering. Reproducibility and Replicability in Science, 2019. https://doi.org/10.17226/25303.
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.