Talk:WikiJournal of Medicine/Estimating the lost benefits of not implementing a visual inspection with acetic acid screen and treat strategy for cervical cancer prevention in South Africa

I've invited the corresponding authors of the following two studies to perform a peer review of this work:. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 17:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No response so far, though. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 20:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * After a total of 31 peer review invitations, we finally have one at File:Peer review of cervical screening article.pdf. I copy the text to the box below. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 18:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion in the journal
This article has now been up for discussion for a week regarding inclusion in Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, at the project's page in Wikipedia. My statement remains that I support including this article in the journal, since both the article and ensuing comments clearly add to knowledge about the situation of cervical screening in South Africa as well as Zambia. The external peer review does point out considerable weaknesses, but denying publication would result in a risk of someone else doing the same work all over again instead of building upon experience from this one. The supplementary picture seems very useful for the Healthcare in South Africa article. I will therefore proceed to include this article in the journal now. I interpret some comments by Abd that the article should be further revised first, but he is not a medical professional and I think there should be a consensus of multiple people before deciding on a different fate of the article. Also, there can still be an ongoing post-publication discussion. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 15:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Review of issues
This section should reflect high consensus, either as to result or assessment of the paper, or as to identification of issues that do not have consensus. If any user believes that closure of an issue is improper, it may be reverted by removing the archive template. However, detailed evidence or argument should be in the discussion above. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Marikana

The mention of the Marikana incident and "indictment" was removed as inappropriate, with the consent of the author.[][] --Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Title There is objection to the title as overlong and containing a double negative. There was a change, with agreement that it was an improvement. I don't see consensus yet that this is complete. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC) page moved back, "author request." --Abd (discuss • contribs) 20:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It is rather long, but does reflect the fact that South Africa didn't implement VIA screening. Mikael Häggström (discuss • contribs) 14:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Estimation of benefit The peer reviewer considered the methodology incomplete, and that the paper was not yet ready for publication on that basis. While the author responded, there has been no follow-up, no additional comment from the reviewer, or other peer-review. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC) Other issues The above subsections are not a complete list. This subsection may be replaced with other more specific issues. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)