Talk:WikiJournal of Medicine/A history of coronaviruses

Plagiarism check
✅ Report from WMF copyvios tool: 0% Plagiarism, 100% Unique. Flagged terms, like “Department of Life Sciences, Pachhunga University College”, “Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus”, “Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV)” and “International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses” were appropriate. -- Alaa )..! 13:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Editorial note
The editorial board have agreed that this should be accepted and I have added to the technical editor task sheet Rwatson1955 (discuss • contribs) 10:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Editorial note
Reviewer #2 made some final suggestions on 26 June 2022:

1. There are now nine HCoV. Two recently identified ones are: Hu-PDCoV, which is a porcine delta coronavirus that crossed species and was identified in Haiti and Hu-CCoV, which was a recombinant canine CoV that was isolated from children in Malaysia with pneumonia

2. HKU4 is believed to be found in Tylonycteris pachypus. This is described in reference 128. As I mentioned in my original review, the Egyptian tomb bat is not the source for the virus and the virus isolated from this bat (100% identity with MERS-CoV) is considered a lab contaminant. another issue is that MERS-CoV is an endemic camel virus at present and occasionally crosses species to infect humans. It likely originated in bats, but the human infection only results from camels. In Saudi Arabia, the camel and human viruses are nearly identical.

3. The numbers of COVID-19 cases and deaths should be updated.

4. Last paragraph: "Although no details are yet available, but it is generally believed that MERS-CoV originated from bat coronavirus (collectively namedSevere acute respiratory syndrome–related coronavirus)[127] specifically suggested to have evolved from the common ancestor of BtCoV-HKU4 and BtCoV-HKU5.[170][171] . Reference 127 is the early manuscript that misidentified MERS-CoV as being identical to a virus from at the Egyptian tomb bat. The nomenclature and information have been corrected over the past 9 years. MERS-CoV is no longer referred to as a Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related CoV.

I have halted acceptance until the above comments are replied to.

Rwatson1955 (discuss • contribs) 09:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Here are my responses:
 * 1. It is interesting to learn new species of HCoV. However, the article does not emphasise on HCoV. As a matter of fact, Hu-PDCoV and Hu-CCoV are not yet recognised by ICTV. The number of coronavirus species is updated.
 * 2. It would be awfully wrong to say “the human infection [of Mers-CoV] only results from camels.” Human-to-human infection is the major transmission, while camel-to-human infection is regarded as less common. The reference is supported and still cited as legitimate by others (see below).
 * I reiterate my previous response to this comment: “The sentence remains, as I found no evidence of lab contamination (kindly provide if any). Recent literature [see https://doi.org/10.1002/rmv.2150, https://doi.org/10.14202/vetworld.2021.190-199, 10.1016/B978-0-12-801238-3.11634-4, etc.] are consistent with the position that MERS-CoV is bat derived [still upholding Memish et al., 2013]. Also note that Wikipedia has a policy that it is not needed to make right great wrongs as long as reliable sources hold.”
 * 3. COVID-19 statistics are updated.
 * 4. There must be a misreading by this comment: “MERS-CoV is no longer referred to as a Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related CoV.” Nowhere does the manuscript states that MERS-CoV is called Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related CoV. As to the said reference, the justification is as above point 2. I nonetheless changed the wordings for clarity. Chhandama (discuss • contribs) 11:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The author has responded to reviewer 2's comments (see above). Please take a look.  OhanaUnited  Talk page  22:16, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Editorial note
I have reinstated this on the technical editor sheet for acceptance and pdf generation Rwatson1955 (discuss • contribs) 07:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

PDF version looks awful
The final PDF version is a messy compilation (@Rwatson1955 and @ Ncharamut ) – odd formatting here and there, awkward positioning of figures, citation numbers not superscripted, inconsistent font style and size (References). All-in-all, an unimpressive layout. Chhandama (discuss • contribs) 06:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, I am sorry for this. It seems when I uploaded it changed the format somehow. I have the pdf on my computer and it looks completely different than the one here. I am going to try to upload again and see if that works. Ncharamut (discuss • contribs) 22:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, I just uploaded it again and it looks like that worked. Let me know if it looks okay on your end. Ncharamut (discuss • contribs) 22:37, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Needs revision as:
 * Other articles have consistent font style and format. Here, figure legends are in Times, and the main text in a different font and is aligned left, which makes it look shabby. I suggest to compare it with other published articles.
 * There should be consistent style of citation numbers; some are in superscripts while some in regular fonts.
 * Journal and book titles are italicised in standard writing, and none here.
 * Most importantly, scientific names should all be in italics (standard virus names and all binomial names). Please see the original online text for reference.
 * Chhandama (discuss • contribs) 09:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Ncharamut Please see comments above to fix. I was wondering if you created the PDF by editing the Word template directly on Google Doc?  OhanaUnited  Talk page  02:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Chhandama The revised PDF has been uploaded. Thanks for catching these issues.  OhanaUnited  Talk page  22:08, 30 October 2022 (UTC)