Talk:Ischemia-reperfusion injury of the appendicular musculoskeletal system

note
Here, we aim to create a scholarly review of ischemia-reperfusion injury, compiling facts and information deemed relevant to the topic by its contributors, with the end-goal of publication to an academic journal. It is proposed that authorship read: "Wikipedia WikiProjects Medicine Special Working Group for Ischemia-Reperfusion Injury."

I-R MSK injuries: a meta study for the potential of wiki
I would like to test the notion that a scholarly publication can be crafted relying largely on the efforts of wiki-sources contributors. Many authors have discussed the benefits (and drawbacks) of this wiki approach to produce reliable encyclopedia articles. WikiProjects has sought to channel expertise (not unlike Nupedia's intention some years ago), thought it seems that some of the Medicine articles have been slow to take off.

With the goal of publishing a scholarly review article in an academic journal, I have defined the topic. I be contributing to the writing, but look forward to see what insights others may have on this topic.

There may be obstacles to this approach, including the sharing of reference, questions of authorship, or the possibility that a passerby will hijack a near-complete article and submit to a journal without our knowing. I propose that we report the authors on any final work as "Wikipedia WikiProjects Medicine Special Working Group for Ishemia-Repurfusion Injury," with names attached as an appendix.

Anxious to hear your thoughts.

DCmathlete (talk) 04:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has a policy that say that Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. Whatever obstacle you may have envisioned, this is one that cannot be overcome. I think you're attempting to put the cart before the horse. Mduvekot (talk) 22:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the skepticism, Mduvekot, but the above-mentioned policy reads that an author isn't to publish original work or data on wikipedia; a scholarly review is not original research, and perhaps the only difference between it and an encyclopedia article is arbitrary. The number of authors, nor the manner of collaboration matters when writing a review.  The difference between publication in an academic journal versus wikipedia is the process of peer-review and editor's opinion.  The power of wikipedia, in this case, is opening the collaborative process to include (in theory) endless authors, endless reviewers, and endless editors.  By the time a journal has its first look at the article, it's faced a gauntlet, rather than just the 1 or 2 people the contribute to most review articles. A valid limitation may be the actual availability of enough, vested authors DCmathlete (talk) 01:30, 02 March 2017 (UTC)


 * We have previously submitted dengue fever for peer review. I wouldn't worry about others submitting this for peer review, because authorship can be determined by the edit history. JFW &#124; T@lk  15:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)