Talk:Medical cannabis

Wiki Education assignment: Science Writing

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 January 2024 and 10 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Devonwinquist (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Yellowsunshine14.

— Assignment last updated by Amnot Areso (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Medicinal cannabis research

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

I just wonder how a well reputed Q1 journal be labelled as a predatory source? PriyadharshaniK (talk) 11:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

It's WP:MDPI isn't it? Bon courage (talk) 12:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi,

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)

Kindly refer to this: https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=19700188360&tip=sid&clean=0

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)

The journal, Pharmaceutics, is published by MDPI - which is suspected of predatory practices - and is not indexed by Medline, making it an unreliable source; see WP:MEDRS under 'Predatory journals'. Zefr (talk) 18:04, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

• This is way too weak a source for the claims; questionable publisher and not MEDLINE. Bon courage (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  Thank you for the reply. But could you please clarify the followings?

  1. What do you mean by "too weak"?
  2. What is your source for this (too weak)?
  3. What are your good sources?
  4. Could you please cite those sources?

  PriyadharshaniK (talk) 00:44, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

  Given I did not get an answer for my question for several days, I would like to requesting your attention to "Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL"

  This is recommended by the academic authors by this page.

  The article that I cited is available in PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39204426/.

  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)

  To repeat: questionable publisher and not MEDLINE. Why use poor sources in a field where there are good ones? (also see WP:MEDFAQ#PUBMEDRIGHT) Bon courage (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

.