Talk:Journal club

Is this practice unique to medicine? It seems like it could be useful to people in any sort of technical field which has journals. Izzycat 21:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that other fields to get together and talk about literature. However, what is (i believe) unique - is that journal clubs are a fundamental part of recognized medical educaiton, and a requirment in residency training (at least in the US)

Increasingly popular as part of graduate education in other technical fields

Mashdot page on wikipedia was deleted in the past without my knowledge after a brief discussion. The discussion centered on mashdot not being a new idea. I disagree that the concept of using distributed moderation on the web for medical journal club is not new. But regardless, it has potential to be a useful source of discussion and intellectual stimulation, and should not be deleted for personal or political reasons. There are many people involved with this project and a lot of energy is going into it. Thanks Mashdot discussion on role of journal club in medical education

Journal Clubs in the UK were unique to medicine/science until Ben_Goldacre advised the Secretary of State for Education (2012/13) about using research to change UK education. One of the recommendations included starting Journal Clubs in schools. I'm not sure if this change needs to be reflected on this page and/or how it would be incorporated. Suggestions/updates welcome. HowardGees (talk) 10:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

journalreview.org
Journal clubs can occur in real time (ie: a meeting) or asynchronouosly and on-line with the JournalReview.org resource. Thoughts on including this in the journal club article? EBMdoc (talk) 14:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

List of journal clubs
The list of Twitter journal clubs is probably notable, as many clinicians use Twitter as a platform to stay up to date. In that sense I disagree with. There was a furious blog post by Joel Topf about this edit too.

My view would be that sourcing remains problematic, because actually there is no secondary source and the list as such probably breaches WP:NOR. I wonder if it should be hosted somewhere else, with a URL in the "External links" section. JFW &#124; T@lk  11:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * A blog post swearing at wikipedia does not mean that a list is notable. I'm not saying that twitter journal clubs as a topic are not notable, I'm saying that none of the items on that list are notable, and needn't be included in a wikipedia article on the topic of journal clubs in general. I agree with the original research. I know that journal clubs are an event at (probably) every academic institution, and I think this article should focus more on the widespread in-person journal clubs, rather than websites and blogs that are serving as advertising. Natureium (talk) 13:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree Topf's post is sweary, but it reflects the strength of feeling about this and I therefore thought a more circumspect approach was needed. I did not say that the list was definitely notable, and that I had my doubts about NOR. I reverted you because I thought this required further discussion. It would have been helpful if you'd given others an opportunity to weigh in rather than slashing the entire list again (see WP:BRD). JFW &#124; T@lk  10:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The strength of feelings of a blogger are entirely irrelevant. "Journal club" is a very broad topic and I tried to add more information about the topic of journal clubs, which have been around since the 1800. In addition to issues of sourcing, including a list of twitter groups is overcoverage. Why doesn't the blogger just make a list on his website? Natureium (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Do we have sources that comment on these? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment on what? Natureium (talk) 19:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * On the different different twitter enhanced journal clubs. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)