This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Medical cannabis article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Canasol was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 07 July 2011 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Medical cannabis. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cannabis, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cannabis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CannabisWikipedia:WikiProject CannabisTemplate:WikiProject CannabisCannabis articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Epilepsy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of epilepsy and epileptic seizures on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EpilepsyWikipedia:WikiProject EpilepsyTemplate:WikiProject EpilepsyEpilepsy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and autistic culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutismWikipedia:WikiProject AutismTemplate:WikiProject AutismAutism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsWikipedia:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsTemplate:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational DrugsPsychoactive and Recreational Drugs articles
The edit using Q1 open access paper published in the journal Pharmaceutics journal was removed stating that it is unreliable predatory source. Link: https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4923/16/8/1081
The academic journals are categorised to 4 and Q1 include the top 25% of journals. The journal Pharmaceutics belongs to this category.
Also, the citation is from a systematic review. When we consider hierarchy of evidence, systematic reviews lies in the top part. They are well designed academic studies.
So, a systematic review published in a Q1 journal undergoes a critical review process, initially from a group of academic researchers, then from the journal editor and reviewers from the journal who are well reputed researchers in the related subject. PriyadharshaniK (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pharmaceutics was Q2 in 11 years ago. Moreover, kindly read the description given in wikipedia it self. According to wikipedia, it is only 5% (or can be consider as 10%) of MDPI. PriyadharshaniK (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly find it's indexing in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and embase. Both PubMed and Medline are from National Library of Medicine.
As I have motioned earlier, the most reliable source for determining whether a journal is predatory or not is SJR which says Pharmaceutics is a Q1 journal from 2014. It's not predatory simply because publisher is MDPI. PriyadharshaniK (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not being on MEDLINE doesn't necessarily mean the journal is predatory. Simply, that is the reason for a systematic review carry their searches in at least five different data bases and more the better. It is not mandatory for a journal to be indexed in MEDLINE. On the other hand it's journal decision as well to apply for MEDLINE. Moreover, when it's published in PubMed, it is indexed. Simply in this case, anyone can argue if a PhD thesis is not published in MEDLINE, it is predatory.
How can a journal be labelled as predatory simply by not indexed in MEDLINE, when the cite used for labelling, i.e. SJR says it is Q1. The argument should be based on facts, not be bias. PriyadharshaniK (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily think it's predatory. But it's too weak. In an area with ample good sources, there's no need to use such weak ones. Bon courage (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply. But could you please clarify the followings?
Just before editing the page again, I am checking any further objections for the citation, or whether you have any favours for particular publication to cite the same (wound healing properties by medical cannabis). PriyadharshaniK (talk) 01:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I answered why it's too weak. The article cites plenty of 'good sources' - check them out. Alternatively search for other good sources (WP:MEDRS in reputable MEDLINE-indexed journals e.g.) Bon courage (talk) 05:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Simply, since you are fixed minded, I added a screen shot of the medline search which I accessed through my library. I invite you to search independently in medline. PriyadharshaniK (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since you find it difficult to understand about different search engines, here is the search results for the phrase "Cannabinoids in Integumentary Wound Care" in different search engines which search the database: medline.
The first two links are landing pages which require accounts. You can check the NLM iself with this link.[2] No result. You will need to clear the MEDLINE filter to see any result. Bon courage (talk) 01:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done