WikiJournal of Medicine/Peer reviewers
WikiJournal of Medicine
Since: March 2014
Funding: Wikimedia Foundation
Publisher: WikiJournal User Group
|On social media
|In the news
Peer review in WikiJournal of Medicine is intended to both help authors to improve articles, as well the editorial board in deciding whether to include it in the journal. The process of finding and inviting appropriate peer reviewers for article submissions is a responsibility of the editorial board, as well as associate editors. Articles needing peer review can be found at: Potential upcoming articles.
Most authors have allowed their article submissions to the WikiJournal to be open-access in the wiki from the very beginning, but in some cases they prefer to have in confidential up to publication. Many journals do not accept submissions that have been in the open at any time, and thereby authors may be harmed by premature disclosure of any or all of an article submission's details. Peer reviewers must therefore keep such works confidential by restricting discussions about such articles to for example email communications, rather than talk page entries in Wikipedia or Wikiversity. Peer reviewers must not retain such works for their personal use.
Peer reviewers need to fulfill the following criteria:
- Have expertise in the relevant medical field, and be willing to provide credentials when being invited to perform a peer review. Such provision may be done by sending the web address to a reliable webpage with public contact information for verification, or sending copies of certifications. These can be sent to Editor.in.chiefWikiJMed.org, wherein your identity information will be kept confidential.
- Be willing to state any conflicts of interests
- Not be editorial board members of this journal
Individuals not fulfilling these criteria are still welcome to comment on works in need of peer review, such as checking how well the references support their associated article entries. Such comments facilitate and supplement the formal scholarly peer review of articles.
List of registered peer reviewers
In addition to external peer reviewers, medical and research professionals may register as potential reviewers by opening an account signing up to . Alternatively, reviewers can sign up anonymously by emailing ContactWikiJMed.org.
- Athikhun.suw (talk page • contribs) - BSc Biomedical Science, PhD student in Anatomy and Structural Biology Verified
- ashashyou (talk page • contribs) - MD - Internal medicine, geriatric medicine, medical education, history of medicine Verified
- Carlos Muniz (talk page • contribs) - MSc MD - Neurology (espec. Epilepsy), clinical Neurophysiology, Clinical Trials
- Ozzie10aaaa (talk page • contribs) - BS MSci - Molecular biology
- Asdofindia (talk page • contribs) - MBBS - Health research, statistics, epidemiology
- Apidium23 (talk page • contribs) - MD - Anatomy
- Jackpickard1985 (talk page • contribs) - MD - Paediatrics, neonatology
- Ben Toth (discuss • contribs) - BSc PhD - History of medicine, epidemiology
- Adoarns (discuss • contribs) - MD - Epileptology, clinical neurophysiology, neurology
- User: rootbern - PhD - Immunology, autoimmune diseases, origins of life, evolution of receptors and transporters, history of science, art-science interactions, artist
- Prashant Pandya (talk page • contribs) - Ph.D - Drug Development & Clinical Research
- Jitendra Kumar Sinha (talk page • contribs) - B.Sc. Zoology, M.Sc. Neuroscience, Ph.D. Biochemistry - Neurobiology, Obesity, Ageing, Nutritional Neuroscience, Neurochemistry
Peer review guidelines
Peer reviews are made for the latest versions of articles (not the last "Reviewed version"). Peer reviews to WikiJournal of Medicine can be written online on the corresponding Discuss page (by subsequently clicking "Add topic" at top), or be emailed.
Peer reviews that are written online should include:
- A disclosure of conflicts of interests, or simply state "Conflicts of interest: none declared".
Comments may be added in-line in the article. An alternative method is to edit the article text directly online. However, you should still summarize your edits and declare any conflicts of interests on the Discuss page or by email. All online entries should be signed by spelling out your name (or username if you have created an account).
Emailed peer reviews should include the title of the work that is peer reviewed, preferably with a link to the page in Wikiversity. Emailed peer reviews are sent to the editor who invited you to peer review, or to the editor-in-chief Mikael Häggström:
to: Editor.in.chiefWikiJMed.org (or to the editor who sent a peer review invitation)
Emailed content will be made available online under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike 3.0 Unported License. Any reviewer that wants to pass a review request onto a colleague must get the editor’s permission beforehand.
Initial peer reviews should preferably be written within 3 weeks. Comments should be constructive, include both strengths and areas for improvement, and be referenced whenever possible. Otherwise, WikiJournal of Medicine has no strict rules regarding the structure and length of a peer review, since it appreciates every comment and suggestion for both potential and already included works. For example, length of peer reviews have varied from 65 words to approximately 700 words. Still, following are some guidelines.
Anonymous or non-anonymous
Peer reviewers can choose to be anonymous or non-anonymous to the public. The identity of anonymous peer reviewers will be available only to a designated peer review coordinator and the editorial board. On the other hand, being non-anonymous allows the peer reviewer to use the contribution directly as an academic merit, while anonymous peer reviewers may use services such as Publons to receive academic credit for their efforts. Yet, being non-anonymous may possibly prevent the peer reviewer from freely criticizing the target work due to fear of appearing to discredit one or more authors.
Ideally, a peer review of any article should critique any flaws, as well as provide constructive recommendations on how to improve it. Some general suggestions for considerations are listed below.
- Content: e.g. Does it reflect the current thinking in the field, is there anything important missing, is anything incorrectly stated?
- Referencing: e.g. Do the references support the statements being made? Are there any important recent papers that are missed? Are any of the references used out of date or considered obsolete?
- Style: e.g. Are any statements unclear? Are any diagrams misleading or incomplete?
- Ethical standards: Has informed consent been obtained if needed? May the author(s) have relevant conflicts of interest that have not been declared?
For research articles
For research articles, the following additional additional questions may be answered:
- Will the article add to existing knowledge?
- Does it summarize what we knew before?
- Is it up do date?
- Does the introduction provide a rationale why the research at hand is needed?
- Does it provide a clear research question?
- Is it described in sufficient detail?
- Is the study approach adequate in aiming to answer the research question?
- Were the participants adequately described?
- Were their conditions defined?
- Were inclusion and exclusion criteria described? Were these criteria adequate in selecting a proper group for the purpose of the research
- Was the research properly executed?
- Were there clear outcome measures?
- Are the results credible?
- Are the results well presented?
- Was the approach to data analysis appropriate?
- Does it help in answering the research question?
- Interpretation and conclusion:
- Is it adequately substantiated by the given data?
- Was the sample size adequate?
- Have possible confounding factors and/or biases been considered?
- Was the study up to ethical standards?
- Is patient consent commented?
- Have risks of harm for participants been minimized?
- Is there appropriate protection of research subjects, including animals?
- Was there approval by an ethics committee or institutional review board?
- If not, is there an adequate explanation whether this was done or not?
- Limitations: Any omission?
- Abstract: Does it reflect the work in general?
- Supplemental files:
- Are these sufficient in including necessary information?
- Does information therein properly match what is in the manuscript?
- Should any information therein be reported in the manuscript?