Talk:WikiJournal of Medicine/Viewer interaction with YouTube videos about hysterectomy recovery

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

WikiJournal of Medicine logo.svg

WikiJournal of Medicine
Open access • Publication charge free • Public peer review • Wikipedia-integrated

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/2020.006'>

Article information

Authors: Ankita Gupta[a]ORCID iD.svg , Kate Meriwether[a], Sara Petruska[a], Sydni Fazenbaker-Crowell[a], Collin M McKenzie[a], Adam L Goble[a], J Ryan Stewart[a]

Ankita Gupta; Kate Meriwether; Sara Petruska; Sydni Fazenbaker-Crowell; Collin M McKenzie; Adam L Goble; J Ryan Stewart (19 November 2020), "Viewer interaction with YouTube videos about hysterectomy recovery", WikiJournal of Medicine, 7 (1): 6, doi:10.15347/WJM/2020.006, ISSN 2002-4436, Wikidata Q99496970




 


plagiarism check

Artículo bueno.svg Pass. Report from WMF copyvios tool: 0% Plagiarism, 100% Unique. Flagged terms, like “Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery”, “University of Louisville School of Medicine”, and the cited article by “Sood A, Sarangi S, Pandey A, et al. YouTube as a source of information on kidney stone disease. Urology 2011; 77: 558-562.” were appropriate. --Alaa :)..! 21:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Statistical Review


Comments by Eyoungstrom ,

These editorial comments were submitted on , and refer to this previous version of the article

The description of the statistics in the Methods is clear, and the detail is adequate. The choice of nonparametric methods is highly appropriate given the likely distribution of the data being analyzed. Setting the alpha or critical p at <.01 is appropriate given the sample sizes involved and presenting multiple p values. The percentages could be reported with a consistent number of decimals (preferrably zero or one, to avoid pseud-precision and to enhance readability. Overall, no concerns and much to like. Eyoungstrom (discusscontribs) 16:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

WikiJournal Preprints - Ankita - Statistical Review.pdf

A
 Author-submitted pdf file.


Response

21 August 2020‎

Response in attached PDF


Comments by Eyoungstrom ,

These editorial comments were submitted on , and refer to this previous version of the article

I appreciate the authors' response, and see no further issues with the statistical analyses or presentation. I commend the authors on a responsive revision in general. Eyoungstrom (discusscontribs) 21:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Peer review 1


Review by Anonymous , Dr. NMB Baruah Nursing Home | Published a pubmed indexed article on Youtube vidoes on COVID-19

These assessment comments were submitted on , and refer to this previous version of the article

  1. "May consider removing the sentence ""Irrelevant videos included titles such as “Why Did You Decide to Become a Doctor?”, “Ovarian cancer: one woman's story” and “Robotic Inguinal Hernia Surgery”."" in results section
  2. Authors may mention if they cleared the browser cookies and history prior to browsing. These may act as effect modifiers for the results.
  3. The sample size is commendable. It must have taken a good amount of time analyzing the videos. My best regards to the authors for writing in an overall great article on an important topic. "
Response

6 August 2020‎
  • "May consider removing the sentence ""Irrelevant videos included titles such as “Why Did You Decide to Become a Doctor?”, “Ovarian cancer: one woman's story” and “Robotic Inguinal Hernia Surgery”."" in results section
Thank you for your comment. This line has been removed.
  • Authors may mention if they cleared the browser cookies and history prior to browsing. These may act as effect modifiers for the results.
Thank you for your question. We did not use a browser but rather used the YouTube Application Programming Interface (API) which does not use cookies to modify results. This line has been updated in methods and now reads:
The API search returns metadata (e.g. date of publication, number of likes, et cetera) with a unique YouTube ID number that allows reviewers to retrieve all metadata and access videos at the same point in time and does not use cookies to modify results.
  • The sample size is commendable. It must have taken a good amount of time analyzing the videos. My best regards to the authors for writing in an overall great article on an important topic. "
Thank you for your kind comments.


Review by Anonymous ,

These assessment comments were submitted on , and refer to this previous version of the article

Peer reviewer 1 replied: "Yes, they have answered my queries satisfactorily. Thank you."

Peer review 2


Review by Anonymous , Prof, European Union | Published > 300 MEDLINE indexed articles

These assessment comments were submitted on , and refer to this previous version of the article

Thanks for the opportunity to review this article. It is well written.

It is an innovative topic and it would not have occurred to me.

Done well with good statistical analyses and nice tabulations of results - very understandable.

The discussion and conclusion are startling and perhaps nonstandard but valid and interesting. Thinking outside the box like this may help keep us (practitioners) relevant!

I cannot really fault at all.

WikiJournal Preprints - Peer review 2 - Ankita responses.pdf

A
 Author-submitted pdf file.


Response

6 November 2020‎
  • Thanks for the opportunity to review this article. It is well written.
Thank you for your kind comment.
  • It is an innovative topic and it would not have occurred to me.
Thank you for your kind comment.
  • Done well with good statistical analyses and nice tabulations of results - very understandable.
Thank you for your kind comment.
  • The discussion and conclusion are startling and perhaps nonstandard but valid and interesting.
Thank you for your feedback.
  • Thinking outside the box like this may help keep us (practitioners) relevant!
Thank you for your kind comment.
  • I cannot really fault at all.
Thank you for your review of our work.