Talk:Ashok Gupta
From MEpedia, a crowd-sourced encyclopedia of ME and CFS science and history
Medical Hypotheses journal -- Canele (talk) 00:06, June 7, 2022 (UTC)[edit source | reply | new]
Hi @Notjusttired: hope you are as well as can be. I don’t disagree with the general critical thrust of this page but I do think MEpedia should make a call about its view of the Medical Hypotheses journal. If this criticism needs to be here, then it also needs to be on for instance Michael VanElzakker's page. Perhaps a better solution is to make a page for the journal and hyperlink it to give readers context that way. Canele (talk) 00:06, June 7, 2022 (UTC)
- Hi there! Hope you are good too. I did wonder with Medical Hypotheses - if was a surprise to find out in fact. It's on so many pages that I don't know how much point there is repeating info everywhere. I wondered about adding it to the glossary then it is highlighted so the explanation will be seen without it being linked it manually on each page. Instead of a page for the journal (I don't think there's that much to say say it) what about a subheading on the peer review page? A redirect page to the subheading can be added, possibly a link to that from a glossary entry too? Medical Hypotheses journal seems largely to be relevant for little known or independent researchers who don't have peer reviewed research and don't seem likely to publish any. ~Njt (talk) 20:35, June 9, 2022 (UTC)
- Adding it to the glossary sounds great. For an page, I was just thinking we could basically copy over the text from this page and then add a list of studies relevant to ME. But a glossary entry sounds like it would work just as well! Basically just something to make it a bit more uniform rather than criticizing it on one page but not others. Canele (talk) 22:57, June 9, 2022 (UTC)
