Wikipedia:BMJ/Wikipedia Science Conference presentation

Comparison between BMJ process and other past and current Wikipedia peer-review processes

In Wikimedia

 * A prominent link to the reviewed version at the top of the current (editable) version of the article.
 * Wikimedia to host a "nice" copy of the reviewed version that is associated with its DOI. Something nicer than this.
 * Wikimedia to host a "nice" (readable, without wikitext) diff between the current version and the reviewed version, which is prominently linked at the top of both versions. See the difference between this (nice) and this (standard) diff.
 * Who will do the writing? WikiProject Medicine is already overstretched. A flood of new enthusiastic academics and students will be attracted by the news that there will be a permanent, immutable, peer-reviewed version; a version not vulnerable to vandalism, good-faith errors and the bias of anonymous contributors; a version that is prominently linked at the top of the current version.

At BMJ

 * Compensation/incentive for reviewers.
 * Recognition and prestige.


 * Reviewer guidelines.
 * Structure of the review process.
 * Should there be one or two lead reviewers who are "scholars" in the topic and can endorse the article's comprehensiveness and weight?
 * Should individual reviewers be responsible for only those sections that fall within their nominal field of expertise, and should the various parts of the article that each reviewer endorses be made clear to the reader?
 * COI statement for each reviewer.


 * Do we prominently name the contributing authors? (I say no, in order to avoid uppity badge/citation-gatherers becoming a nuisance.)

Links

 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dengue_fever
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Anthonyhcole/sandbox&oldid=678912787
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dengue_fever&diff=678774791&oldid=629402504