User:Anthonyhcole/Talking points


 * Wikipedia's health content is inconsistent and unreliable
 * Yet Wikipedia dominates search engine results for health queries and it is the leading single source of healthcare information for patients and healthcare professionals (Takes 1 minute to register)
 * The world deserves health information it can trust at the top of most search engine results
 * We are aware of our responsibility here, but unsure what to do about it
 * One possible approach is to
 * Have independent experts review our best articles for accuracy and completeness (once the articles have been through a rigorous internal review process) and prominently label those articles that have passed expert review, so our readers can identify our more reliable articles
 * At the top of the current (editable) version of a reviewed article, prominently link the reader to the locked version of the article that passed expert review
 * Regularly re-review each reviewed article as the topic evolves


 * We will only follow this course if we are confident the review process will produce articles that are the gold standard in reliability
 * We have limited in-house expertise or experience in the management of scholarly peer review, and due to conflict-of-interest concerns it would be best if the process were managed at arms-length from Wikipedia or the WMF, so we are looking for advice from and collaboration with the best people and organisations involved in peer review
 * We expect the initial demand for review to be very light - maybe ten reviews in the first year - but, if it takes off as we hope, over time this will rise to hundreds per year (new reviews and re-reviews)
 * Would Fiona, personally, be interested in working with us to bring this about, or be willing to offer advice or guidance?
 * Would BMJ be interested in collaborating with us in this endeavour?

Why them?

 * BMJ has 175 years experience in publishing peer reviewed literature, high public recognition and a deserved reputation for rigor
 * Dr Godlee has built her reputation on her commitment to reliability in medical information, and has written extensively on the topic of peer review
 * With their wide stable of journals, BMJ has a comprehensive list of reviewers

BMJ's risk?
Risk to the reader is low, considering we don't publish dosage information and all other information is supported by high quality independent secondary sources, so BMJ's liability risk is low or nonexistent.

BMJ's benefit

 * Enhanced exposure, with BMJ appearing at the top of every article edition endorsed by their reviewers.
 * Appreciation from the general public worldwide. Our readers know they shouldn't trust Wikipedia but they would very much like to. BMJ will be seen as the white knight that makes it possible to trust the medical articles at the top of search results.


 * Background details

Update 20th November

 * I announced BMJ's offer to English WikiProject Medicine on 15 September. . Two articles were proposed for review: Parkinsons disease and Endometrial cancer, and User:Soupvector is trying to drum up a team of experts to prepare Malaria.


 * On 10 October, BMJ chose Parkinsons disease to start with.


 * On 19 October, BMJ said their first choice for reviewer had accepted, and last Friday 13th November they said they have four more and are ready to roll. This week, we're sending a few newbie guinea pigs through the online reviewer tutorial (BMJ/Reviewer tutorial) just to make sure it's clear and simple enough.
 * I've told User:Looie496 - the editor who will be responding to most of the critique - that I expect the review to start in the next week or two. We expect the review to take a week or two. So, assuming the article passes review, we should have our first BMJ-reviewed article by Christmas.

Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)