Talk:WikiJournal of Medicine/Peer reviewers/Archive 1
| You are examining an archive of past discussions for transparent review by inquisitive participants.
Please ask questions and share your thoughts on the current discussion page.
People interested in peer reviewing
- You can add me to the list of peer reviewers. I'm a neurologist specialized in Epilepsy and Clinical Neurophysiology and have a MSc in Clinical Trials. I can review any papers in those areas, including methodological papers. Carlos Muniz (discuss • contribs) 23:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Please let me know if there's any submission related to anatomy or neuroscience.--Athikhun.suw (discuss • contribs) 06:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- would like to peer review most anything (molecular biology, in particular)....(anonymously, is that possible?)--Ozzie10aaaa (discuss • contribs) 17:24, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- Good to hear that, Ozzie10aaaa! Yes, it is possible to review anonymously. With the current system is that you then email the peer review. Do you agree that you fulfill the peer reviewer criteria? If so, I'll let you know when there's a fitting submission. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 09:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- I am interested in peer reviewing.ashashyou.
- Great! Please also state if you fulfill the criteria, as I now added at top. Otherwise, I assume geriatric medicine is your main field of expertise. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 18:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- I fulfill the peer reviewing criteria. I am willing to review in internal medicine, geriatric medicine, medical education and history of medicine.
- I'm an MBBS graduate doing my internship. I am interested in health research, statistics, epidemiology, etc and therefore am willing to review articles on any general topic that come up on the wikiversity journal. I believe I fulfil the peer reviewer criteria. Asdofindia (discuss • contribs) 12:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- I believe I fulfill the peer-review qualifications, I'm specifically interested in anatomy so please let me know if there are any papers about anatomy.--Apidium23 (discuss • contribs) 10:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- I am a doctor with some years' experience working in paediatrics and neonatology as part of the UK run-through training programme. As an avid reader of research in these areas, I would be interested in peer-reviewing articles. Jackpickard1985 (discuss • contribs) 15:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- You can add me as a peer-reviewer. I have a first degree in medical sciences, a PhD in social medicine, and have published several peer reviewed papers . Areas of expertise: history of medicine, epidemiology.
- I am an epileptologist and clinical neurophysiologist as well. I would be willing to review anything in neurology.Adoarns (discuss • contribs) 17:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
The inspiration for the peer review guidelines was mainly from Guidance for peer reviewers by BMJ, as well as Peer Reviewing for the Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 19:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Peer reviewing and credit
I've only just come across this project due to the Signpost article. I think it's fascinating. Just a quick note which may be of interest to the editors. Currently, this page says "Peer reviewers can choose to be anonymous or non-anonymous to the public. Being non-anonymous allows the peer reviewer to use the contribution as an academic merit, but can possibly prevent the peer reviewer from freely criticizing the work due to fear of appearing to discredit one or more authors." There is actually another way that peer reviewers can get credit for peer reviewing, and that's through using Publons. Beyond having my own account, I'm not familiar with how Publons works, but perhaps steps could be taken to ensure that peer reviewers on Wikiversity journals could gain recognition on Publons for this work, if they haven't already? J Milburn (discuss • contribs) 22:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, J Milburn! I will bring this up with the board - I definitely think it is worth mentioning to prospective (and past) peer reviewers. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 10:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)