Talk:WikiJournal of Medicine/Editors/Archive 2019

Editorial board application of Salman Mansoor

 * Comment It looks as though this application is incomplete. I've emailed the applicant to ask if there are other details to add. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 23:35, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Result: Declined after application timeout.

Editorial board application of Prashanth N Srinivas

 * - Expertise in public health (especially of currently under-served communities) is particularly useful. Additional background in policy engagement, research communication is T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 07:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * - Existing committee involvement and public health experience certainly relevant. Chiswick Chap (discuss • contribs) 08:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * - Diptanshu &#128172; 18:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * - An editorial board member requested to anonymously oppose via email, recommending to tighten criteria may be needed as the journals mature. 01:07, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. This may be needed and am happy to contribute towards building such criteria. Have added what I feel may be pertinent in my case as well. Prashanthns (discuss • contribs) 04:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * - Rwatson1955 (discuss • contribs) 09:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * - Per T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo). --Netha Hussain (discuss • contribs) 07:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Result: Accepted into the editorial board. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 20:18, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Next steps (add DONE or ✅ after someone has performed the task):

Finally, move the application to this year's archive page (Suggested email template)
 * 1) ✅ Confirm their preferred email address. I have asked this by the online email form. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 20:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) ✅ Copy their information over to editorial board page using the  template
 * 3) ✅ Direct-add them to the board mailing list (via this link) which will grant them access to the private page only visible to board members
 * 4) ✅ Send a welcome email with starter info to them and cc in the board mailing list so that they and the board are informed

Editorial board application of Shani Evenstein Sigalov

 * - There don't appear to be any comments by anyone else but this seems a strong candidate with relevant experience Rwatson1955 (discuss • contribs) 09:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * - Very valuable combination of medical and pedagogical knowledge as well as deep experience in the Wikimedia movement. Indeed, from their WMF board application, they clearly have also thought through strategies for its improvement. Their work with the WikiProject Medicine Foundation gives a great insight into useful connections that can be made. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 11:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC) (comment extended 07:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC))
 * - I noticed on your userpage that you mention an interest in iridiology. Could I ask you give a brief comment on your position on it and on the role of evidence-based medicine. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 11:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I am all for evidence-based medicine, but have always been intrigued by a more holistic view of the patient as a means for healing. When I was younger, I explored a variety of related topics, from Herbalism, to Acupuncture and finally, as part of my Yoga training, Ayurveda. In the past 20 years or so, contemporary medicine has opened itself more and more to "alternative medicine" (a term I don't really like, as types of healing such as Chinese Medicine and Indian Medicine have been around for thousands of years, many times laying the basis for modern medicine, like in the case of Sushruta's writings on surgery). So -- the fact that something is not related to Modern medicine doesn't mean it's wrong. I believe in combining the good of both worlds for the benefit of patients, as longs as it's done in an informed way and based on proper research. We have more and more academic research proving some alternative approaches actually enhances quality of life and serves as part of preventive medicine efforts, so again, as long as it's well-based, I support academic exploration of holistic medicine topics. Hope that answers your query. Shani Evenstein (discuss • contribs) 14:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * One more comment for Jacknunn: I've read your comment and though you ended up removing it, I thought I'd answer you anyway, as if you thought it, maybe others think it as well. I feel very comfortable with the way you stated it and can declare that "I'm interested in this subject but accept there is currently no evidence to support it". Since we don't know each other in person, I thought I'd stress that to me there's a huge difference between being interested in something and exploring it as a hobby, and between pushing for it in a formal capacity such as being an editor in a peer-reviewed journal. It's almost to different poles of my interests and life. They might collide, but usually, they don't. So to me, that's really a non-issue. I'll simply never use any platform I'm part of to promote my personal interests or skew results to push an agenda. Just not who I am. Hope that eases your mind, but if not, opened to answering anything else. :) Best, Shani Evenstein (discuss • contribs) 21:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * - I like your view on alternative medicine. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:46, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * - Appreciate your work on Wikipedia and related projects and agree with some of your views on modern medicine as well as your observations on Ayurveda. I would like to seek two comments/clarifications if you agree. (a) In a hypothetical scenario wherein you are asked to take an editorial decision as a member of the editorial board on a trial showing potential harmful effects of a particular system of medicine, what would be important consideration for you to arrive at a decision (assume that there are two peer-reviewers who agree with the demonstration of harmful effects), (b) your publishing experience is currently limited to 2 articles. Hence, could you comment on your ability to contribute at the editorial board level given relatively limited publication experience? Prashanthns (discuss • contribs) 08:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Prashanthns, happily: a) First, the fact a paper has two peer-reviewers thinking one thing and not the other is never a consideration to me. I always strive to judge what I review impartially and based on my own understanding and academic experience. Now, to the core of what you asked -- Whether it's about praising or criticizing a system of medicine, or anything else for that matters (could be a treatment, a drug, or anything of the sort) -- it doesn't really matter. To me, it all depends on the integrity of the research presented, how diligently it was done and whether or not I'm persuaded that the authors are impartial in their research and attitude. Anyone who understands statistics well, as well as how academic research really works, knows that it's very easy to skew results, which some academics do, unfortunately. So caution is needed either way. That said, experienced reviewers can "sniff" from a mile different "shticks" or manipulations, just in the same way that an experienced teachers can recognize a good written and original work of a student, from one that is copied or done carelessly. Which brings me to your second questions. b) I have a long teaching experience (in a variety of educational settings) as well as a long experience in Academia. Over the years, it has made me a critical reader and I have developed the "nose" for "compromised" papers. As part of my work at Sackler, I come in contact with evidence-based research in a wide range of topics in the pre-clinical medical studies. As a PhD researcher, I'm diligent in my own research and strive for academic excellence. As for your comment that I have only published 2 papers since the end of my MA studies in 2016, you are absolutely right. But there's good reason for that -- last academic year (2017-2018) I was working on my PhD proposal and gave birth; and this academic year (2018-2019) I focused on conducting my PhD research. I'm about to finish the data collection phase, and am currently working on 5 different papers (some connected to my research and some to other academic endeavors I'm involved in) that should be finished at different points of the coming 6 months. In short, I'm at the beginning of my academic career. That said, even during my pregnancy and research, I've served as a Peer-Reviewer for well known academic journals in Education, such as IRRODL, so I'm already in the habit of evaluating other people academic papers. If I take a review on, I will review it closely and give constructive feedback (which many do not do), and am not considered a "light" reviewer that don't really care and hardly comments. Finally, as you probably gathered, I'm a very busy woman, so I cannot make promises as to how many papers I will be able to properly review if accepted to the editorial board. But I can promise that whatever I take upon myself to do will be done seriously and completely. So why take that work upon myself if I'm so busy? Simple. Because I believe in the work and feel it is important for me to put some of my personal energy into it. I hope this answers your questions, but if something is still unclear, please don't hesitate to let me know and I'll do my best to answer. Best, Shani Evenstein (discuss • contribs) 19:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your detailed response. Prashanthns (discuss • contribs) 12:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Result: Accepted into the editorial board. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 10:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Next steps (add DONE or ✅ after someone has performed the task):

Finally, move the application to this year's archive page (Suggested email template)
 * 1) ✅ Send a welcome message and confirm their preferred email address
 * 2) ✅ Copy their information over to editorial board page using the  template
 * 3) ✅ Direct-add them to the board mailing list (via this link) which will grant them access to the private page only visible to board members (still awaiting email address)
 * 4) ✅ Welcome them at the board mailing list so that they are informed

Associate editor application of Candace Makeda Moore
Result: Accepted as associate editor.
 * - They have a very interesting combination of medical and computational knowledge (having also added a few open source repositories on github), and it will be useful to have an associate editor with that cross-disciplinary knowedge. They have contributed some interesting work over at radiopedia (which also runs on wiki software). T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 02:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * - The candidate brings a combination of familiarity with different publishing models, as well as a variety of statistical methods and packages -- adding depth to the bench for these things. Looks like a great addition! Eyoungstrom (discuss • contribs) 12:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * - in addition to above, multilingual and experience editingRwatson1955 (discuss • contribs) 17:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * as per reasons outlined by others above. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * per T.Shafee -- Alaa )..! 15:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Next steps (add  or   after someone has performed the task):

Finally, move the application to this year's archive page
 * 1) ✅  Send a welcome message and confirm their preferred email address
 * 2) ✅  Copy their information over to the associate editor page using the  template
 * 3) ✅  Email the board mailing list so that they are informed

Associate editor application of Olatunde Isaac

 * - Good Wikimedia contributions and we need more Associate Editors. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:07, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * - Despite minimal academic publishing experience, I think that they have a very useful perspective coming from a Food and Drug administration background. Their broad experience across multiple wikimedia platforms is also clearly useful. I think they'd be a fine fit with either WikiJMed or WikiJSci. T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 23:59, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * there is little to go on here - one publication - so I do not support this one. Posted on behalf of user:Rwatson1955 (currently unable to post from China) 05:30, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks for your feedback. In addition to my academic publishing experience, I have served in various management, administrative and leadership capacity in the Wikimedia movement which I believe are plausible and would be valuable to either WikJMed or WikiJSci if elected. I'd be happy if you could review your position. Regards. T Cells (discuss • contribs) 09:39, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Result: Accepted as associate editor.
 * - for Associate seems to have an adequate grounding in this, and as noted by others has a useful perspective. Cheers Scott Thomson  ( Faendalimas ) talk 11:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that there's little to go on, but at the same time I we have enough to support an associate editor position. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 04:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that we need more associate editors to keep up with the rise in number of needed peer reviews of articles and so that adding a new member to the team with a good background in Wikimedia in general and in areas related to food and drugs in particular, is a good idea in my opinion. Since I have joined the WikiJournals and up to now I am still learning every day and I so thankful for those we gave me to join this great team and that's why I believe that new comers have the intention to learn which we need for our growth as an open journals movement. Regards--Avicenno (discuss • contribs) 18:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * having reviewed the comments of others and the response from applicant I am happy to support - the Wikimedia experience is very valuable, I agree user:Rwatson1955
 * Next steps (add  or   after someone has performed the task):