Talk:WikiJournal of Medicine/Dyslexia

Plagiarism check
✅ WMF copyvio tool using TurnItIn. Two examples of reverse plagiarism were found where sources had copied sections of the wikipedia article without attribution ( and ). All other similarities are either attributed quotations or references. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 01:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Contacting--Ozzie10aaaa (discuss • contribs) 17:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC) the authors
Although Ozzie would be the corresponding author, I would insist on caring to leave a message on the talk pages of the 29 editors (excluding 3 IPs) who have made more than 20 edits to the page. The objective of this message is to invite the contributors to collaboratively submit the article for review through Wiki.J.Med, and if possible, to help in further betterment of the article in accordance to the suggestions of the reviewers. Diptanshu &#128172; 12:25, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * done per ...did --Ozzie10aaaa (discuss • contribs) 17:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Second peer review
{{review
 * name= Franck Ramus
 * affiliation=Centre national de la recherche scientifique & Ecole Normale Supérieure, Paris
 * date = 2018-12-15
 * version = https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=WikiJournal_Preprints/Dyslexia&oldid=1956182
 * This is the first time I review an article that is meant to become (and that is based on) a wikipedia entry, so I am not sure exactly what standards are expected. In my view this article is as good as most wikipedia entries, but does not meet the standards of a scholarly journal. If the standard is to be that of a scholarly journal, then there is a lot of work to make it suitable. In fact most of it will have to be rewritten, so it might be simpler to restart from scratch.

One problem that can be easily fixed is that the paper seems to be about developmental dyslexia, but dwelves considerably on acquired dyslexia (alexia), and makes many statements that are true of alexia but not of dyslexia (or vice-versa), without making it clear which is being talked about. The obvious solution is to make the Dyslexia entry a disambiguation page, linking to both Developmental dyslexia, and Acquired dyslexia (alexia). And then remove all content relative to alexia from the developmental dyslexia page. Such content can be found in the first paragraph, the second paragraph under Classification, the Definition paragraph, all the subsections under Diagnosis (they all refer to subtypes of alexia), and under History.

From now on I consider this article to be about Developmental dyslexia, which is my area of expertise.

A second problem is that the paper is poorly organised, with many paragraphs tackling different topics than those indicated in the corresponding heading. For instance, causes are discussed under Classification, functional activations are discussed under Neuroanatomy, neuranatomy is discussed under Genetics, genetics are discussed under Mechanisms, with the rest of the Mechanisms section being largely irrelevant (explaining a model of reading), no diagnostic tools and criteria are given under Diagnosis, cognitive causes are spread across several sections but not under Causes, etc... The order of the sections also does not seem particularly logical. Thus a revision of the article might involve a lot of copying and pasting paragraphs from one place to the other. But the contents of many paragraphs also leave a lot to be desired, so it is not clear to me that this is a viable strategy.

A third problem is that the paper starts by giving a purely idiosyncrasic definition of dyslexia, and one that mixes many different aspects (symptoms, criteria, causes, comorbidity). This is seen in many articles, and I don't know if Wikijournal of Medicine has a policy on this, but my view is that it is not up to every author to make up a new definition of a medical disorder. The WHO and the APA have carried out worldwide consultations of international experts to try and reach a consensus about the best definition of each disorder at a certain time in a certain state of knowledge. Let's just use those rather than invent new ones, particularly in a reference work like wikipedia. My recommendation is therefore to start with the most universally accepted definition, that of ICD-11 (https://icd.who.int/dev11/l-m/en#/http%3a%2f%2fid.who.int%2ficd%2fentity%2f1008636089), and potentially discuss the differences with DSM5.

Finally, there are many inaccuracies, too many to list. In many instances, contentious statements are made that represent minority or exotic views, alongside more consensual statements, without any indication of which is which. Amongst the contentious statements are those on being easily distracted by noise, auditory processing disorder, the role of epigenetic modifications, that special fonts help dyslexics read better. Plain inaccuracies include that nonword reading is a measure of phonological awareness, that genetic causes are discovered from post-mortem examination of brains.

{{response|This is a valuable review and have gone about some of the recommended changes:

1.Have adjusted the  types  ... however, per-
 * {{cite web |title=Alexia (acquired dyslexia) |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexia_(acquired_dyslexia)&redirect=no |website=Wikipedia |publisher=Wikimedia.org |accessdate=19 December 2018 |language=en |date=26 December 2014}}...Alexia was redirected to Dyslexia by an administrator (several years ago)


 * I would indicate that on MESH Alexia shares the same link as Dyslexia, goes on to indicate Annotation ALEXIA see DYSLEXIA is also available 

2.Done as suggested and have applied-


 * {{cite web |title=Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles |website=Wikipedia |publisher=Wikimedia.org |accessdate=19 December 2018 |language=en |date=29 November 2018}}

3.Done as suggested (APA, WHO)

4. Generally speaking, in terms of any inaccuracies I would indicate that the majority if not all references are based on-


 * {{cite web |title=Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) |website=Wikipedia/Wikimedia.org |accessdate=19 December 2018 |language=en |date=9 December 2018}}

which dictates the use of reviews, meta analysis, position statements from NIH,WHO and professional textbooks (additionally this article passed both Good Article and Good article reassessment )

I believe I have addressed the specific comments,however if anything needs to be further  reviewed/responded I would be  more than  happy to, I would like to thank you for your valuable time and recommendations--Ozzie10aaaa (discuss • contribs) 14:55, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

ref
}} }}

Comment on Second Peer Review
The second reviewer wrote, "... the paper seems to be about developmental dyslexia, but delves considerably on acquired dyslexia (alexia), and makes many statements that are true of alexia but not of dyslexia (or vice-versa), without making it clear which is being talked about."

I share that concern. I understand that Wikipedia sends searches for "alexia" or "acquired dyslexia" to the Dyslexia article, but that does not mean Wikipedia is right.

The developmental disorder, "dyslexia", should be carefully and clearly differentiated from the neurological disorder alexia, also known as acquired dyslexia, that can occur at any age due to stroke, traumatic brain injury, and other neurological insults. - Mark D Worthen PsyD  (talk)  12:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

reply
Dr. Worthen,        Thank you for your comments, will be answering below and adjusting text to comply:


 * 1) ... per ...have adjusted text
 * 2) ... per …."Dyslexia... is now recognized that it is better conceptualized as a cluster of language related conditions...1.a form of language disorder...2.problems of visual perception"...I have worded it as two particular features, however should you feel better wording might be needed I would be happy to further alter text


 * Regarding this (revised) sentence: "Dyslexia has two particular features, one related to language processing and another to visual processing", your revision provides a bit more clarity, but I think it's still unclear, probably because the reference you cite (Campbell's Psychiatric Dictionary) presents a murky, contradictory explanation (p. 311). Campbell states that "[a]lthough dyslexia was originally described as a defect in visual processing, it is now recognized that it is better conceptualized as a cluster of language-related conditions ...", but then, a mere two paragraphs later, he declares that "problems of visual perception and memory" characterize one of two dyslexia types. Thus, he states dyslexia is not due to visual processing deficits, and two paragraphs later he says that (one type of) dyslexia is due to visual processing deficits. I suggest looking to additional authoritative sources for a more coherent explication.  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  06:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * agree, therefore have added a review... which was already present as a reference in the article
 * 3. ... have clarified by trimming unneeded text

Finally as to your point about Alexia (above), I would indicate the "Classification" section (immediately after the first paragraph).I believe I have addressed the specific comments,however if anything further needs to be reviewed/responded I would be more than happy to, I would like to thank you for your valuable time and recommendations--Ozzie10aaaa (discuss • contribs) 23:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Should indicate that I received email regarding PMC link problem, which has a Phabricator bug report and then was sent to Template_talk:Citation/core, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (discuss • contribs) 23:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Looks good. :O)  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  06:11, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Third peer review
{{review I thank the associate editor for the opportunity to review the Wiki Journal submission on Dyslexia. I have now thoroughly reviewed the pre-print version of the submission at https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WikiJournal_Preprints/Dyslexia and provide annotated comments below. The submission has many strengths. Most notably, it ably summarizes relevant characteristics of the disorder and, for the most part, is logically organized. Nevertheless, I do believe it can be strengthened with some additional explication in some areas and some slight reorganization of the page. More detailed comments follow.
 * name = Ryan J. McGill
 * affiliation=William & Mary School of Education
 * link=https://education.wm.edu/ourfacultystaff/faculty/space/mcgill-r.php
 * date = 2019-01-09
 * version = https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=WikiJournal_Preprints/Dyslexia&oldid=1956182

For the sake of transparency, I should note my background as a school psychologist and school psychology trainer and researcher. Thus, my experience assessing and treating individuals with dyslexia and my understanding of the issues associated with this construct is largely limited to educational settings. In particular, K-12 public school systems in the United States.

The initial operational definition provided for dyslexia (a.k.a., reading disorder [RD]{{efn|The nomenclature associated with this condition varies significantly across fields. For the sake of parsimony, I will employ the terms Reading disorder or RD throughout.}}) notes that it is characterized by trouble with reading despite normal intelligence. Whereas IQ as measured by commercial ability measures has historically been used as a reference marker to identify RD, the role of IQ testing is now minimized in diagnostic handbooks such as the DSM and in emerging models of LD identification. Even so, in models that emphasize IQ testing such as the ability-achievement discrepancy model, it is possible for an individual to have below average intelligence and still be identified with RD (Siegel, 1989). Therefore, it might be worthwhile to reframe as “trouble with reading despite the presence of otherwise spared cognitive and achievement abilities.”
 * Introduction

It might also be worthwhile to note that RD is also synonymous with specific learning disability (SLD) in the area of reading.

In terms of etiology, it might be worthwhile to note that deficits specifically in phonological processing are most often observed in individuals with RD who have problems with basic decoding and fluency (Wagner, Torgeson, & Rashotte, 1994).

I appreciate the comment regarding student motivation to learn in the introductory section. This is still a common base canard that one encounters in the schools.

This section could be greatly expanded as there is no relevant discussion of various classification systems (e.g., discrepancy, profiles of processing strengths and weaknesses [PSW], response-tointervention [RTI]). These three methods in particular are the most prominently referenced in the educational and psychological literatures. I realize that these methods may not necessarily resonate within a medical context, they are described and/or referenced in virtually every diagnostic handbook. Each has their own strengths and weaknesses (see Alfonso and Flanagan, 2018). My recommendation would be to briefly review each model and simply note that overlap between the models is poor and as a result there is considerable controversy associated the 1 The nomenclature associated with this condition varies significantly across fields. For the sake of parsimony, I will employ the terms Reading disorder or RD throughout. application of each method (McGill, Styck, Palomares, & Hass, 2016). At the present time, a gold-standard method of diagnosis has yet to be identified despite considerable time and resources that allocated to this area of research.
 * Classification

Nice job dispelling the myth of letter reversals. Another common canard. I thought this section was well done. The authors did a nice job of succinctly summarizing the developmental course of RD in very understandable terms.
 * Signs and Symptoms

Paradoxically, RD also has a relatively high commodity with mathematics disorder. Some prevalence estimates indicate co-occurrence that it can be as high as 30% (Willcutt et al., 2013).
 * Associated Conditions

It would seem that citation of Shaywitz’s and colleagues systematic program of research in the neurological correlates of dyslexia would be relevant to this section. In particular, their work pertaining to the role that cortical activation in the angular gyrus may play in fluent decoding (e.g., Pugh et al., 2000). I found the graphics in this section and the subtypes section to be extremely informative.
 * Neuroanatomy

I am not well versed in the genetics associated with RD so my commentary is necessarily restricted. However, I did enjoy reading those sections and am keen on checking out some of the literature that is cited to learn more about these aspects of RD and their potential implications for intervention.
 * Genetics

As there is no test that can effectively diagnose an individual with RD I would recommend reinforcing that point a bit more here. It is implied in the introductory statement about probability.
 * Diagnosis and Definition

As someone who does a lot of work in this particular area, I would not regard the WISC or any IQ test for that matter as a diagnostic test for RD. As previously mentioned, although IQ testing is a core feature of many classification systems, there is presently insufficient empirical evidence to indicate that they are useful for reliably and validly classifying individuals with RD. According to Mather and Schneider (2015), a confirmatory profile or pattern of scores on cognitive tests ruling-in or ruling-out RD has yet to be identified.

Some of the material in these sections is also discussed, albeit briefly, in earlier portions of the submission. Therefore, I would recommend moving this material to those sections. For example, I would regard classification as equivalent to diagnosis. Given the prominent role that schools systems play in identification and treatment of RD, I would recommend adding some language regarding educational classification systems and how those may differ from medical/psychiatric classification.


 * Types of Dyslexia

I have no major concerns with this section but a comment indicating that similar to the definitional issues, an editorial comment highlighting disagreement about the number and types of dyslexia is also an issue. For example, Fletcher and colleagues (2007) stipulate that whereas subtypes exist, their implications for treatment planning are often specious. On the other hand, there is empirical research to support subtype by treatment interaction effects (e.g., Lorusso, Focoetti, & Bakker, 2011).

Whereas individuals with RDs can be remediated over time to the point of attaining age/grade level proficiency in reading skills, the most optimal outcomes require significant intervention supports and resources. For example, the Hospital for Sick Kids in Toronto has pioneered a number of gold-standard intervention programs for children with RDs but those programs often require 20-30 hours of intervention per week. My colleagues and I just completed a chapter on LD intervention and found that, for the most part, effect sizes begin to attenuate when dosage is decreased.
 * Prognosis

Again, here I think organizationally these sections should probably be introduced earlier in the submission. Research and Society I think an important point to add to this section is that much of the confusion about what RD is and how to best classify it stems from the fact that phenotype expression of individuals with RD and garden-variety poor readers (those that struggle with reading but don’t have RD) is the same in many respects. That is, even though the majority of scholars agree that RD is a legitimate psychological disorder, being able to reliably and validly distinguish between these groups remains difficult. Until, this issue is bridged, debates on these matters will likely remain contentious.
 * Epidemiology and History

Overall, I commend the authors for taking on this topic. There is a lot of material to cover and resources to cite. Curating this page is certainly an undertaking even for those well versed in the area. I enjoyed reading the submission and I hope that the authors find my comments useful.


 * References
 * Alfonso, V. C., & Flanagan, D. P. (Eds.). (2018). Essentials of specific learning disability identification (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
 * Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Barnes, M. A. (2007). Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention. New York: Guilford.
 * Lorusso, M. L., Focoetti, A., & Bakker, D. J. (2011). Neuropsychological treatment of dyslexia: Does type of treatment matter? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44, 136-149.
 * McGill, R. J., Styck, K. S., Palomares, R. S., & Hass, M. R. (2016). Critical issues in specific learning disability identification: What we need to know about the PSW model. Learning Disability Quarterly, 39, 159-170.
 * Mather, N., & Schneider, D. (2015). The use of intelligence tests in the diagnosis of specific reading disability. In S. Goldstein, D. Princiotta, & J. A. Naglieri (Eds.), Handbook of Intelligence: Evolutionary theory, historical perspective, and current concepts (pp. 415- 434). New York: Springer.
 * Pugh, K. R., Mencl, W. E., Shaywtiz, B. A., Shaywitz, S. E., Fulbright, R. K…Gore, J. C. (2000). The angular gyrus in developmental dyslexia: Task-specific differences in functional connectivity within posterior cortex. Psychological Science, 11, 51-56.
 * Siegel, L. S. (1989). Why we do not need intelligence tests scores in the definition and analyses of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 514-518.
 * Wagner, R. K., Torgeson, J. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1994). Development of reading-related phonological processing abilities: Evidence of bidirectional causality from a latent variable longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 30, 73-87.
 * Willcutt, E. G., Petrill, S. A., Wu, S., Boada, R., DeFries, J. C., Olson, R. K., & Pennington, B.F. (2013). Comorbidity between reading disability and math disability: Concurrent psychopathology, functional impairment, and neuropsychological functioning. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46, 500-516.

{{notelist}}

{{response|This is a valuable review and have gone about some of the recommended changes:

1.a. Done as suggested

1.b.& c. In terms of synonymity and etiology the suggestions are best placed in the body of the article rather than the introduction, however should you feel strongly on these two points I would then insert them into the introduction

1.d. To clarify the reference indicates ''Reading disorders are not a ... unwillingness to learn.'' in terms of 'student motivation'

2.a.Done as suggested, however used this reference

2.b.Done as suggested by indicating 'overlap'

3.This is a comparative study per MEDRS we use reviews, meta-analysis preferably 4.The suggested reference- '''Pugh, K. R., Mencl, W. E., Shaywtiz, B. A., Shaywitz, S. E., Fulbright, R. K…Gore, J. C. (2000). The angular gyrus in developmental dyslexia: Task-specific differences in functional connectivity within posterior cortex. Psychological Science, 11, 51-56.'''... has several issues, I. per the prior response above  MEDRS, we use reviews, meta-analysis (primary sources are weaker to back-up a statement) II. the paper indicated is from 2000, per the aforementioned guidelines newer articles +/- 5 years are preferred due to obvious reasons

5.a.Done as suggested (Mather and Schneider (2015)

5.b.Though I respect your comments, the reference  in question (for IQ test) is a review

5.c.In terms of moving additional information/text to the classification section does not seem judicious as the classification section would become rather substantial. Furthermore, I don't believe it would be prudent to put such information in that section (classification)

6.Done as suggested (Fletcher (2007))

7.Done as suggested (have added a position statement from NYED.gov)

8.a. Per MEDMOS {{cite web |title=Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles |website=Wikipedia |accessdate=10 January 2019 |language=en |date=9 January 2019}} ...these are the guidelines used for medical article layout (content sections)

8.b.Done as suggested (NIH)

I believe I have addressed the specific comments,however if 1.b.& c or 5.c. needs to be further reviewed/responded I would be more than happy to, I would like to thank you for your valuable time and recommendation--Ozzie10aaaa (discuss • contribs) 21:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

ref
}}}}

Author - Editor dialogue
Dr Worthen, I understand and agree with your removal of text from 'Classification'  section, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (discuss • contribs) 11:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)}}
 * Thank you. ¶ I should have emphasized that my edits are suggestions, not imperatives; I'm on the editorial staff, not one of the article's authors. Ozzie, et al. make the final call on their manuscript submission.  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  15:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. I've added one or two references to strengthen the text, thank you --Ozzie10aaaa (discuss • contribs) 18:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Some more time for a better quality article seems logical ('classification' section ), thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (discuss • contribs) 23:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ozzie! I really appreciate your patience and understanding. ¶ I'm thinking that if you have time, you might want to peruse the edits I've made thus far at my sandbox working copy of the article, and begin incorporating the edits you find helpful into the actual manuscript. I'm hoping it won't take too long if you simply copy-and-paste wikitext for the changes you believe improve the article. ¶ I should finish my suggested edits later today or early tomorrow. Also, later today I will add some general explanatory notes at User talk:Markworthen/sandbox/dyslexia. ¶ I have not adding anything to the "reasons for waiting just a little longer" page I had started.  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  18:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Mark, I will begin the process immediately, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (discuss • contribs) 18:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Excellent! ¶ I finished the brief explanatory notes at User talk:Markworthen/sandbox/dyslexia. - Mark D Worthen PsyD  (talk)  18:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Will be watching page User talk:Markworthen/sandbox/dyslexia as well, thank you as always--Ozzie10aaaa (discuss • contribs) 19:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles the classification section should be within the 'diagnosis' section (as a sub-section), have added Oct 9 edits--Ozzie10aaaa (discuss • contribs) 17:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Mark, I believe I have addressed the specific comments/edits ,however if anything needs to be further reviewed/responded I would be more than happy to, I would like to thank you for your valuable time and recommendationOzzie10aaaa (discuss • contribs) 20:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for your excellent communication, flexibility, patience, and alacrity. :0) ¶ I'm reviewing everything right now.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  17:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I recommend deleting 6.3 Types of dyslexia and 6.4 Subtypes per Jason Dixon's recommendation (with which I agree): "The issues that stand out as an unnecessary distraction are the multiple references to acquired dyslexia."  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  18:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)}}


 * I went ahead and deleted them with this edit note: "Removed these two sections because they are mostly about acquired dyslexia; the parts that are about developmental dyslexia could be integrated into other sections of the article, although I'm not sure that's necessary" (diff).  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  19:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ultimately, I agree with you, the article would need to be significantly different--Ozzie10aaaa (discuss • contribs) 19:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I deleted two sentences from the Classification section for the same reason (diff). I moved two of the citations to Note [a].  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  18:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree as well (FWIW, undoubtedly there should be some types as the spanish review did indicate so, however its probably best to leave it out, thank you)--Ozzie10aaaa (discuss • contribs) 19:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Re: the image I deleted, yes please put it back, it's a cool one. I meant to retain it, but goofed up.  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  20:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no text left that indicates Broca's area which was the reason for that image, maybe the newer image can take its place elsewhere in the text, in terms of visual information/illustration for the reader(this is the Corpus callosum)--Ozzie10aaaa (discuss • contribs) 20:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I have finished what I can contribute at this time. I think the Assessment and Management sections would benefit from focused review and edits, but I defer to you, the action editors, Associate Editor, and Editor-in-Chief. Perhaps ask Dr. Jason Dixon to have a look? Also, in the recent email thread Roger Watson offered to help. In my experience he is a superb editor, so it might be good to have him take a look at the Assessment & Management sections too. Finally, I took some notes for the Assessment section, in case that might be helpful. I copied-and-pasted those notes on my working copy sandbox talk page.  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  20:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Mark, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (discuss • contribs) 20:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Dyslexia Awareness Day (suggestion)

 * may be of interest world dyslexia awareness day Oct. 4 for social media suggestions, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (discuss • contribs) 20:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC)