Talk:The BMJ

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals 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.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal articles
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Open Access Low‑importance

The BMJ is part of WikiProject Open Access, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to Open Access and at improving other articles with the help of materials from Open Access sources. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Open AccessWikipedia:WikiProject Open/Open access task forceTemplate:WikiProject Open AccessOpen access articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Open Access to-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Creative Commons licensing (to replace Creative Commons license); Creative Commons Attribution License (currently a redirect), reproducible research (currently a redirect), supplementary material. Scholarly Open Access (currently a redirect)
Cleanup : Access2Research
Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stub-Class Open access articles.
Other : add {{WikiProject Open Access}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess;
- Check media files uploaded by the Open Access Media Importer for missing or incomplete categorization or lack of descriptions, or put the files into suitable Wikipedia articles. See also recent uploads of open-access files more generally.

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

DavidAllen,TheBMJ (talk · contribs) has been paid by The BMJ on their behalf. Their editing has included contributions to this article. Disclosure at User:DavidAllen,TheBMJ

Comments

Killfile explained Midgley 02:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BMJ or British Medical Journal?

I thought the British Medical Journal had changed its name to "BMJ". (Maybe they were tired of getting confused with The Lancet.) Anybody know? --Nbauman 20:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted! The article ought to point that out or it should be retitled or some'it. I found out when for you: At the bottom of page http://resources.bmj.com/bmj/about-bmj it states: "What does BMJ stand for? British Medical Journal. The name was changed in 1988 (vol 297)."--Aspro 14:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DTB

The "Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin" has come back online again. http://www.dtb.bmj.com/dtb/do/home
Does any think it deserves its own article? Could anyone write a good honest appraisal of it (Andrew Herxheimer name suddenly comes to mind for some reason), rather than the usual PR job these articles often get. --Aspro 13:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial articles

A reference to this article was included by ATB. It is one of a pair of articles on the topic, "Are condoms the answer to rising rates of non-HIV sexually transmitted infection?". It argued no. Is this sufficiently notable to mention? Should other issues of controversy be sourced to add some balance to that section? Fences and windows (talk) 16:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something about vaccines and mercury and a bunch of antivax rants(heres the link) https://www.bmj.com/content/329/7466/588.3/rapid-responses Underwailer (talk) 07:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The publisher's staff are not entirely traceable....

http://resources.bmj.com/bmj/about-bmj/editorial-staff

http://resources.bmj.com/bmj/about-bmj/editorial-advisory-board-1

My question is that how I validate those persons, if there are no physical addresses of them for readers to confirm...???--222.64.209.103 (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the right place to ask that question. If you have a query about the BMJ's staff, why not ask them? Fences&Windows 02:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to The BMJ?

Apparently that's how the publisher calls it: [1] Although in citations, it's still named just "BMJ" -- could that be considered an ISO4-abbreviation of the the long name "The BMJ"? Fgnievinski (talk) 16:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 July 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain ^t/c 13:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BMJ → The BMJ – current publication name, as per history in article lede – Fgnievinski (talk) 03:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 06:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fgnievinski and Philg88: This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done "The" does not appear to be part of the journal title- see WP:TITLE. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Officially, it is now: compare current covers [2] to covers from earlier years [3]. Looks like an effort to distinguish the journal and the company which publishes it. Unfortunately for this rebranding campaign, at least some reliable sources are continuing to call the journal "the BMJ" rather than "The BMJ" [4]. Heck, Times Higher Education is still calling it "the British Medical Journal" [5] two decades later. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 08:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment would you make BMJ into a disambiguation page? -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have created BMJ (disambiguation). The journal seems like the primary topic, however. St Anselm (talk) 08:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks for that; after the move/rename, the hatnote can simply be changed from {{other uses}} to {{Redirect|BMJ||BMJ (disambiguation)}}. Fgnievinski (talk) 14:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd just go back to British Medical Journal, it's common name. Randy Kryn 10:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support move. I think "The BMJ" sounds awkward compared to "BMJ", but what I feel sounds good or not is irrelevant. As noted by the IP above, the cover uses "The BMJ" and if you go through their website, you'll see that they use this systematically. Per WP:TITLE, "the" should be included in our article title, so I disagree with Philg88's close here. British Medical Journal would definitely be wrong. The journal changed to BMJ years ago to reflect its international nature better than the title suggested. --Randykitty (talk) 09:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Randykitty: I'm confused by your comment. There was no "close" involved here. Instead I declined the move request on the basis that the front cover of the journal shows just "BMJ" in the article infobox. I have no dog in this hunt, I just opened the matter up to wider discussion. Philg88 ^♦talk 09:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose unnecessary abbreviations instead of a clear and easy-to-understand full name. The title should be British Medical Journal.
- BMJ → British Medical Journal
- BMJ (disambiguation) → BMJ

Glen Spearleat (talk) 17:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I'm afraid you don't understand. The name of the journal is BMJ. The name was British Medical Journal, but that was abandoned. The British Medical Journal does not exist any more, it was succeeded by a journal named "BMJ", whether we like it or not. --Randykitty (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, the long name is officially it's former name. Fgnievinski (talk) 21:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Request to edit

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

This request to edit is submitted by David Allen of The BMJ, on the advice of a Wikipedia staffer. Please get back to me at dallen@bmj.com if you need to clarify anything.

Journal Content section: On the Xmas edition it says: '.. is known for its spoof or humorous articles (though mainstream media often fall for the joke)'

Actually, these articles are never 'spoofs', and always based on real science, so we would suggest the following amended wording: '... is known for research articles which apply a serious academic approach to investigating less serious medical questions. The results are often humorous and widely reported by the mainstream media.'

Editions The BMJ is principally an online journal, and it is only the website which carries the full text content of every article. However, a number of print editions are produced, targeting different groups of readers with selections of content, some of it abridged, and different advertising. The print editions are: General Practice (weekly) for general practitioners Clinical Research (weekly) for hospital doctors Academic (monthly) for institutions, researchers and medical academics In addition, a number of local editions of The BMJ are published in translation. There is also Student BMJ, an online resource for medical students, junior doctors and those applying to medical school, which also publishes three print editions a year. The BMJ's global online community is Doc2Doc.

BMJ Website and Access Policies On Rapid Responses (para 1) it says: 'However, concerns remain, even among the web editors of the journal, that this feature may be abused by correspondents who might not want to contribute anything substantial to the topic under discussion.[19]' While this may have been a concern in 2005 (when the referenced article was written), it is no longer a worry and the sentence above should be deleted if possible.

Also under BMJ Website and Access Policies its says: 'Access restrictions are lifted a year after publication.'

This is wrong and should be deleted.

Other services I would like to amend as follows: "The following alerting services are freely available on request: The BMJ - What’s new online (UK/US/India/International editions): Weekly summary of the need to know medical news, latest research, video, blogs and editorial comment. · The BMJ Editor’s choice: Dr Fiona Godlee introduces a selection of the latest research, medical news, comment and education each week. · The BMJ table of contents (daily or weekly): Links to the latest articles from The BMJ. · The BMJ press releases"

External links Please update the link from 'Official website' as this goes to the company home page not the journal. The correct link is: http://www.bmj.com/thebmj

DavidAllen,TheBMJ (talk) 10:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Hi David, thank you for proposing these changes and the accompanying explanations. It looks like these are factual and don't contain any suggestions that might appear controversial. I have also added some further citations to support this. Drchriswilliams (talk) 12:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Updating the accompanying cover image (image supplied)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Request from David Allen at The BMJ: can we update the cover image used on this page? The current version is from 2009. A more recent cover is now uploaded to Wikipedia Commons with default licence:

Many thanks. David Allen DavidAllen,TheBMJ (talk) 09:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Drchriswilliams; thanks for the image donation. Altamel (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The BMJ. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/nurtureshock/archive/2009/12/18/santa-s-a-health-menace-media-everywhere-are-falling-for-it-but-the-entire-study-is-a-fake.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]