Template talk:Academic peer reviewed

What this is for
This template is to be placed on Wikipedia articles that have been published in a peer reviewed journal. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

What image to use
We have some options here



Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Scope
I am wondering whether we indeed want to stress the fact that a version of this article has been indexed in PubMed (note the spelling, by the way) or  in PubMed Central or whether we should rather go for something like peer reviewed. In any case, I think we should clearly indicate the respective version of the page, and perhaps archive a copy of it on Wikisource, where we could link through Wikisource or one of its variants. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 07:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Happy with those suggestions. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Placement
Where is this template going to be placed? At the top of a page? We have OA-attribution for similar purposes, and it is typically displayed in the reference section (see category). -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 07:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I was planning like the spoken Wikipedia icon, up at the top here Template:PubMed_indexed and also at the bottom Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * For the moment, I've moved it down to the References section of the articles that it's placed in. The book icon should now appear in the top-right corner to link to the peer-reviewed version published in an academic journal. That way, readers looking to cite reliable sources will be looking in the References section, and those who know enough to read the icons at the top of the article will see that it's been through scholarly peer reviewed. T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 09:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

template broke
Could you help them fix their broken template. The review parameter does diddly squat. It either shows the DOI or pmid link. At the very bottom of PubMed indexed, the external link "Dengue fever: a Wikipedia clinical review" shows a link to pubmed.

Also, one cannot use a link to Wikipedia. Per WP:CIRCULAR, Wikipedia is unreliable and can't use unless talking about Wikipedia. If a physics prof can't use their own talk page message as a ref, why a doctor? Bgwhite (talk) 08:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. The review parameter seems to be working fine on my browser. It is intended to add a link to a publicly accessible academic peer review if available (I think that Dengue Fever: a Wikipedia clinical review had a closed peer review, so the review parameter isn't used on that page). For articles where the academic peer review is publicly accessible, e.g. Circular Permutation in Proteins, it links to the peer review for the article, published in the scientific journal PLOS Comp Bio. I agree that none of these should link back again to Wikipedia. They should all be linking to external journal sites. I'll have a look through them in case there are any erroneous en.wiki links. T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 09:33, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I now see the issue, the peer review for Dengue Fever: a Wikipedia clinical review is hosted at Talk:Dengue_fever. I agree, it would be far better were the peer review hosted at the journal's website. However, I think Open Med closed down, so the only archived version of the article is at PMC, and the peer review is now only available on the Wiki talk page. T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 09:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * We got permission for the peer review to be placed publicly and therefor we have placed it on WP. We look at it further in a bit when I return. This bit is about Wikipedia. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There is something wrong. In Dengue fever and Cerebellum, review goes to a Wikipedia page, but the article has it going to pubmed and DOI respectively.  Cerebellum goes to DOI because pubmed is blank.  Why even set anything for review if nobody sees it?  If nobody sees it, then remove the link or fix the template.
 * Doc James, I get ripped by you, but having the Wikipedia ref is against MOS and it doesn't show up in the article. I have a list to do every day of 70+ of these types of articles and I usually don't remember if I've been there before.  It finally dawned on me, which is why I left a message here.  Doc James, you don't have consensus to go against MOS, so don't rip me for following MOS.  Bgwhite (talk) 21:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The review parameter is included in the template so that the peer review can be linked to (if available). If the parameter is not used, then no link is shown so nobody sees it. If the parameter is used, then the link is shown in the sentence "The published version can be read and cited here and the peer review here". For the Cerebellum, the review parameter should link to the WikiJournal of Medicine. Having the option of doi, pmid, and pmc allows users of the template to use any or all of these, with the template automatically prioritising doi>pmc>pmid, so I don't think it's a huge problem to have multiple parameter options. T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 10:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The basic question is should we allow the peer review to be linked to if publicly avaliable. Public peer review is another step forwards in open access publishing. Often the journal would host such peer review. Many are not set up for it and thus why we hosted it on Wikipedia. The link to the peer review is not being used as a reference it is being used as a link to the peer review. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes James, this is the point. As it is not being used as a source WP:CIRCULAR does not apply. We could copy the peer review to a subpage with an explanatory heading, lock it down and link to that. Graham Beards (talk) 07:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

An edit proposal/request
Greetings and felicitations. I ran across this template in Rotavirus §References, and find a small fault with it: without an entry in the "Date" field there is an extra space before the period at the end of the first line, and my Wikimarkup-fu isn't strong enough to figure out how to fix the problem. Assistance, please? (DocJames?) —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I've fixed it. Let me know if the problem pops up again anywhere and I'll check again that I've not missed anything! T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 11:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * @T.Shafee(Evo & Evo): It does seem so. Thank you! ^_^ —

Improper use
The references section of articles is for references that ARE used, not that could be used. Further this template is ungainly and not in keeping with the format of actual citations in the article, dominating the References section with an altered format, in spite of not even being used as a source. In the instance I saw (Dengue fever) it is unlikely to be used as a source anyway, because the peer review is eight years old and the article is out of date. Please place this template on talk pages, not in article space. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  13:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

recent edits broke this template
See.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Besides, the template has zero to do with references or notes, but is being parked in those sections. At best, it could be considered an external link and used there (if it were made to be more in line with other project templates).  But even worse, it is being used on articles that are out of date, well beyond the time of the peer review, and really should be used instead on talk pages (as it is correctly at Talk:Rotavirus). This is a poorly designed template that is being incorrectly used in the wrong place.  Considering the numerous comments to that effect on the AFD, why is it being installed in mainspace, and well beyond the time of the peer review, and on articles that are outdated?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Placement, text and formatting discussion
Note: there is a relevant discussion about this template currently at Wikiproject Medicine. Updated versions being drafted in Template:Academic_peer_reviewed/sandbox. T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 05:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I've updated the template from the /sandbox version. It now formats differently on mainpages and talkpages as well as better reflection the relevant licenses and other info depending on the type of article (see docs for examples). The mainpage version is more akin to and  since it's attribing the source as a starting point for further evolution on WP. The talkpage version now uses and I've tried to minimise vertical space taken as far as possible (takes up 2 lines on my screen) whilst including more useful detail for editors. The main functional change is that where QID was previously optional, it's now required and all info is drawn from wikidata. T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 06:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

A parameter to distinguish between "In whole" and "In part"
According to the template description, "This template is to be used on main pages and talk pages of articles that have been though academic peer review and published in whole or in part in an academic journal."

However, there are no means to distinguish between the articles published in whole or in part. The template looks like an article has been published in whole, which is misleading for the articles published in part. Please consider adding a parameter to distinguish that.

--Maxim Masiutin (talk) 23:17, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

CITEVAR and doi-access issues
This template, since it uses Cite Q, appears to cause the same WP:CITEVAR problems that Cite Q causes. An example is at Cooperative binding, where the consensus author format is the Vancouver "Last AB" format, but this template shows full names in "First Last" order.

Also, this template causes that article to be placed in, and I have been unable to figure out how to apply free to either the template or the Wikidata item in question. Any insight will be appreciated. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, I support your observation.
 * The template should also support the doi-access attribute.
 * See the article Ancestral reconstruction as an example where doi-access attribute should have been useful. Without that attribute, it triggers the category "CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI". Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)