Wikipedia talk:BMJ

Approval process question

Is an applicant for this valuable free resource vetted in any way other than the criteria on the Project page? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 13:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, an indefinite block has been awarded to an applicant on this list. indefinite block -Roxy the dog (resonate) 14:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Roxy the dog: Thanks for the heads up. Accounts are not available to editors who are indef blocked on their primary project (where they intend to use the free account). I will check when we process this week. Best, Jake Ocaasi^{t | c} 15:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

User:LeProf_7272, am passing on this request, but writing to note that "All [BMJ] research articles are freely available online, with no word limit" and so urge the issuing manager of this process to consider the areas in which BMJ is strong vis-a-vis secondary content (esp. clinical review material, see following); then, perhaps as a distant second in consideration, in news content including obituary. Once these are identified, one can match the strengths on each part in the issuing of these 25 licenses to Wikipedia editors. I would note that the focus of BMJ I have seen is decidedly on applied rather than basic research, e.g., on systematic reviews of clinical trial and related clinical results (in traditional medical areas), on clinical matters related to accepted or emerging standards of care, and insofar as anything more basic is concerned, on strategies and pipeline matters related to pharma discovery (e.g., see [1], noting in particular how many of these reviews are free, and that the clinical reviews are the ones tending to be generally unavailable). In the news area it is strong especially on UK-, Commonwealth-, and Europe-focused medical news, including on the NHS and EMA, and on obituaries of prominent medical clinicians scientists (esp. in the aforementioned geographic areas). These or better-researched connections might best fit WP editors to this particular resource (and so I, an early preclinical drug discovery and molecular medicine fellow) am passing on the application. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Passing on a copy to interested editors

I am under the general impression that passing on a single copy of an article to an editor working on a related article via email is an acceptable use. I always include "for research for the purposes of editing WP and not for distribution". Just wanted to make sure I was acting within terms of agreement. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sharing a copy of a single source in this manner is fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not using as much as expected

I am not using this as much as I thought I would. I think another editor could make better use of it. What should I do?Testem (talk) 16:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Testem, good question. We don't have a return process in place for BMJ at this point - we may be bringing this up with them after the holidays, along with hopefully getting some more accounts for those on the waitlist! Nikkimaria (talk) 18:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New reference tool

There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]