Talk:WikiJournal of Medicine/Editors/Archive 2019

Editorial board application of Salman Mansoor

Salman Mansoor MBBS, MRCPI, FCPS Trained (Neurology), Student at University College London in Clinical Neurology
Areas of expertise: Neurology, Medicine

Relevant experience:

Professional -

Publishing -

Open -

I confirm that I will act in accordance with the policies of the WikiJournal of Medicine. Salmanmansoor.dr (discuss • contribs) 01:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• 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﹠Evo)^talk 23:35, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Result: Declined after application timeout.

Editorial board application of Prashanth N Srinivas

Prashanth N Srinivas MBBS MPH PhD (website)
Areas of expertise: Public health, health inequalities, indigenous health, health policy and systems research, OneHealth, Mental health in primary care

Relevant experience:

Professional - Research on health inequalities of indigenous people, teaching research methods, health policy engagement, research communication, research leadership

Publishing - Experience with publishing in peer-reviewed journals (see Google Scholar profile. Peer-reviewer for several international journals in public health see Publons profile. Also maintain a scinece/society blog and write newspaper Op-eds on public health topics

Open - Contributor on multiple Wikimedia projects, Opendata advocate

I confirm that I will act in accordance with the policies of the WikiJournal of Medicine. Prashanthns (discuss • contribs) 05:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support - Expertise in public health (especially of currently under-served communities) is particularly useful. Additional background in policy engagement, research communication is T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 07:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Existing committee involvement and public health experience certainly relevant. Chiswick Chap (discuss • contribs) 08:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Diptanshu 💬 18:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - 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)
  •  Comment 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)
• Support - Rwatson1955 (discuss • contribs) 09:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Per T.Shafee(Evo﹠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 Y Done after someone has performed the task):

1. Y Done 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. Y Done Copy their information over to editorial board page using the {{WikiJournal editor summary}} template
3. Y Done Direct-add them to the WJMboard mailing list (via this link) which will grant them access to the private page only visible to board members
4. Y Done Send a welcome email with starter info to them and cc in the WJMboard mailing list so that they and the board are informed

Finally, move the application to this year's archive page (Suggested email template)

Editorial board application of Shani Evenstein Sigalov

Shani Evenstein Sigalov PhD Candidate, Tel Aviv University; Chair, WikiProject Medicine Foundation.
Areas of expertise: Education & Technology, Medical Education & Curriculum Development, Implementing Wiki projects into the academic curriculum.

Relevant experience:

Professional - I'm an EdTech Innovation Strategist at the American Medical Program at Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University. I have also designed and lead Wiki-Med, the 1st for-credit elective course dedicated to Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects contributions. I lead another elective course focusing on Wikipedia & Wikidata contribution at TAU that is available to all undergraduate students on campus. As of 2017-2018, I'm a PhD candidate at the School of Education at TAU, focusing on Technology and Education, specifically researching Wikidata as a learning platform.

Publishing - So far, I've only published my MA thesis and an academic paper about my Wiki-Med course, that was published in the journal "Education and Information Technologies" by Springer Nature (Sigalov, S. E., & Nachmias, R. (2017). Wikipedia as a platform for impactful learning: A new course model in higher education. Education and Information Technologies, 22(6), 2959-2979). Am currently working on 4 more papers as part of my PhD and Wiki research.

Open - I have been part of the Wikimedia movement since 2011, and have focused mainly on outreach, governance, capacity building and mentorship. In addition to being the chairperson for WPMed Foundation, I'm also the chairperson for the Wikipedia & Education User Group. More details about my Wiki experience could be found here. Since the early 2000s, I am also heavily involved with Project Ben-Yehuda, which is the Hebrew equivalent of Project Gutenberg, and serve as Editor in Chief of the project, as well as Chair the charity that supports the project.

I confirm that I will act in accordance with the policies of the WikiJournal of Medicine. Shani Evenstein (discuss • contribs) 21:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support - 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)
• Support - 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﹠Evo)^talk 11:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC) (comment extended 07:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC))
  •  Comment - 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﹠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)
• Support - I like your view on alternative medicine. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:46, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment - 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)
    • Support 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 Y Done after someone has performed the task):

1. Y Done Send a welcome message and confirm their preferred email address
2. Y Done Copy their information over to editorial board page using the {{WikiJournal editor summary}} template
3. Y Done Direct-add them to the WJMboard mailing list (via this link) which will grant them access to the private page only visible to board members (still awaiting email address)
4. Y Done Welcome them at the WJMboard mailing list so that they are informed

Finally, move the application to this year's archive page (Suggested email template)

Associate editor application of Candace Makeda Moore

Candace Makeda Moore MD (website)
Areas of expertise: Radiometrics, AI in radiology

Relevant experience:

Professional - clinical (practiced medicine in Puerto Rico and Israel), industry and other. Please see my linkedin at https://www.linkedin.com/in/candace-moore-6a0650b2/

Publishing - writer and editor (peer reviewed article in J Neurosci. 2006 Sep 6;26(36):9304-11. and Radiopaedia articles), publishing experience while at Columbia U.

Open - editor at Radioapaedia.org (recently promoted from subeditor)

I confirm that I will act in accordance with the policies of the WikiJournal of Medicine. Candace Makeda Moore (discuss • contribs) 17:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support - 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﹠Evo)^talk 02:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support - 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)
• Support - in addition to above, multilingual and experience editingRwatson1955 (discuss • contribs) 17:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support as per reasons outlined by others above. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support per T.Shafee --Alaa :)..! 15:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Result: Accepted as associate editor.

Next steps (add DONE or {{Done}} after someone has performed the task):

1. Y Done Send a welcome message and confirm their preferred email address
2. Y Done Copy their information over to the associate editor page using the {{WikiJournal editor summary}} template
3. Y Done Email the WJMboard mailing list so that they are informed

Finally, move the application to this year's archive page

Associate editor application of Olatunde Isaac

Olatunde Isaac B.sc (Biochemistry) (website)
Areas of expertise: Food safety and Applied Nutrition,nutraceuticals, herbal medicine and related products

Relevant experience:

Professional - Research, Food & Drug regulations, functional foods, outreach etc

Publishing - http://www.journaljammr.com/index.php/JAMMR/article/view/14899

Open - Administrator, Yoruba Wikipedia & License reviewer on Wikimedia Commons

I confirm that I will act in accordance with the policies of the WikiJournal of Medicine. T Cells (discuss • contribs) 09:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support - Good Wikimedia contributions and we need more Associate Editors. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:07, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support - 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﹠Evo)^talk 23:59, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose 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)

Rwatson1955, 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)

• Support - 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)
• Support 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)
• Support 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)
• Support 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

Result: Accepted as associate editor.

Next steps (add DONE or {{Done}} after someone has performed the task):