Talk:WikiJournal of Medicine/The Cerebellum

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

WikiJournal of Medicine logo.svg

WikiJournal of Medicine
Wikipedia-integrated • Public peer review • Libre open access

Journal Issues

WikiJournal of Medicine is an open-access, free-to-publish, Wikipedia-integrated academic journal for Medical and Biomedical topics. <seo title=" WJM, WikiJMed, Wiki.J.Med., WikiJMed, Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, WikiJournal Medicine, Wikipedia Medicine, Wikipedia medical journal, WikiMed, Wikimedicine, Wikimedical, Medicine, Biomedicine, Free to publish, Open access, Open-access, Non-profit, online journal, Public peer review "/>

<meta name='citation_doi' value='10.15347/wjm/2016.001'>

Article information

Authors: Marion Wright, William Skaggs, Finn Årup Nielsen, et al.

Cerebellum article with peer review highlights.pdf


Reviewer-annotated pdf file.

Review by anonymous peer reviewer  
This review refers to this previous version of the article

The article is very informational and is written in an encyclopedic voice. It is written at a scholarly level while still maintaining enough readability for lay readers. Though, I suggest a few changes (highlighted in the attached pdf).

1. While the article provides a comprehensive overview of the cerebellum in terms of its structure and functions, certain aspects of its anatomy are still lacking:
- Information on blood supply should be added (superior cerebellar artery, anterior inferior cerebellar artery, and posterior inferior cerebellar artery), perhaps with illustrations.
- Its connections to the brainstem (the three cerebellar peduncles) and tracks (e.g., cerebellothalamic tract) should be mentioned.

2. Information on cerebellar anomalies should also be added to section 'Clinical significance', e.g., Arnold-Chiari malformation, Dandy-Walker syndrome, etc.

Other comments:
1. I notice some missing citations at several locations:
- Page 1, 'Most of them derive from....., Purkinje cell receives two dramatically...., The basic concept of Marr-Albus.....
- Page 5, last paragraph of section 1.2.1 Purkinje cell, The most popular concept of their function....
- Page 7, section 2 Function, last paragraph, Kenji Doya has argued......
- Page 9, second paragraph of section 2.3 Theories and computational methods, Perhaps the earliest "performance" theory...

2. Page 3, Figure: Microcircuitry of the cerebellum, abbreviation of CFC is lacking.
3. Page 7, section 1.2.5 Deep nuclei, use the word 'supply' instead of 'innervate'.

These issues are now been [amended]. Thanks Marion! Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 19:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I can also forward that the peer reviewer is pleased too with the current article version. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 19:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


"This complex neural organization gives rise to a massive signal-processing capability, but almost all of its output passes through a set of small deep cerebellar nuclei lying in the interior of the cerebellum."

What does "its" refer to? Tony1 (discusscontribs) 09:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not been amended, where "its" refers to "the cerebellar cortex". Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 10:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Reference comments[edit]

I checked over this article's references and have a few notes. (I can add them myself; I'm just unsure what the protocol is for doing so, or if all changes should be proposed here first.)

  • Ref 5 (Purves): "(4th ed. ed.)." should be "(4th ed.)".
  • Ref 8 (Herculano-Houzel) should have |volume=4 and |issue=12.
  • Ref 9 (Ghez) could use the isbn (978-0444009449).
  • The DOI and PMIDs for refs 11 and 12 appear to be reversed (11 links to 12 and vice versa).
  • Petersen et al (ref 11) could have |issue=2 added to it.
  • Ref 13 (Strick) should be |journal=Annu. Rev. Neurosci..
  • Ref 15 (Schweighofer), journal should be Brain Res. Rev.
  • Ref 23 (Rapp) could use a location if known.
  • Ref 30 (Doya): journal should be Neural Net.
  • Ref 31 (Eccles) could use a page no. and location, if known.
  • Would it make more sense to cite the underlying article (here) instead of an interview with the authors for ref 46?
  • Ref 49 (Horvath et al) could use |pages=294—306.
  • Ref 54 (Hatten) needs |pages=385-408, |authors=Hatten ME, Heintz N, |doi=10.1146/, |journal=Annu. Rev. Neurosci., and |volume=18.
  • Ref 55 (Polkinghorn) could use |pages=295-304, |authors=Polkinghorn WR, Tarbell NJ, |journal=Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol., |volume=4, and |doi=10.1038/ncponc0794.
  • Ref 56 (Roussel) should be {{Cite journal|url =|title = Cerebellum development and medulloblastoma|authors=Roussel M, Hatten ME|date = 2011|journal = Curr. Top. Dev. Biol.|doi =10.1016/B978-0-12-380916-2.00008-5 |pmid = 21295689|pmcid=PMC3213765}}
  • Ref 69: |journal=Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
  • Ref 70 uses a full date where no other journal previously has.
  • Ref 76 could use a location, if known.
  • Ref 79: ISBN 0-89603-435-6
  • Are there English-language titles for refs 81 and 82? They should probably have "(in German)" somewhere in them, right?
  • Page numbering is inconsistent throughout. Should it be 404-8, 786-91, and 1204-350 or 404-408, 786-791, and 1204-1350?
  • Book/chapter authors use full names most of the time (Lastname, First M. and also sometimes First M. Lastname) whereas journal authors use Lastname FM. Should this be standardized?
  • Formats employed in website publication and retrieval dates are sort of all over the map: January 21, 2016, 2 February 2015, 2009-12-24.
  • Is there a standard format for listing locations? Both Whitehouse Station, New Jersey and Sunderland, Mass. (state name spelled out, abbreviated, respectively) are used.

That's what I got. I hope it's useful! Best, Bobamnertiopsis (discusscontribs) 21:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the findings! I will bring up with the editorial board soon about how we will proceed with these corrections. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 16:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
@Mikael Häggström: per the policies on this page, would it be alright if I went in and changed the reference consistency stuff (all the bullet points without a question attached to them, basically)? Bobamnertiopsis (discusscontribs) 22:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes Bobamnertiopsis, it is all right for you to change the references as suggested, also those with question marks. After taking it to the board, it all can be categorized as "inconsistencies in reference formatting", and as such it can be edited without having the authors go through it. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 05:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)