We suggest citing pages at openMetaAnalysis in the manner done for Wikipedia.
- openMetaAnalysis Contributors. Hypertonic Saline for Bronchiolitis. openMetaAnalysis. Version December 14, 2014. Available at: http://openmetaanalysis.github.io/Hypertonic-Saline-for-Bronchiolitis/. Accessed December 14, 2014.
If you make a substantial update, we encourage you to submie a summary of the update for publication in an academic journal (example). Suggested approaches: users could simply link in their curiculum vitae to their user page, or link to the branch histories or the review they contributed to.
- Doe, J. Hypertonic saline for bronchiolitis: a living systematic review. Contributions archived at https://github.com/openMetaAnalysis/Hypertonic-Saline-for-Bronchiolitis/commits/gh-pages/ and https://github.com/openMetaAnalysis/Hypertonic-Saline-for-Bronchiolitis/commits/master/
- or -
- Doe, J. Hypertonic saline for bronchiolitis: a living systematic review. Contributions archived at https://github.com/doej
Additional methods of citing your contributions are recommended by the National Library of Medicine in Citing Medicine: Chapter 24 Databases/Retrieval Systems on the Internet.
Authors should consider summarizing their edit at http://wikidoc.org and can then cite that edit in the page history at wikidoc. For example:
- Revision by badgettrg: WikiDoc contributors. Bronchiolitis medical therapy. WikiDoc. Nov 9, 2014. Available at: http://www.wikidoc.org/index.php/Bronchiolitis_medical_therapy#Hypertonic_saline. Accessed November 9, 2014. Edit isolated in page history: http://www.wikidoc.org/index.php?title=Bronchiolitis_medical_therapy&diff=1047854&oldid=1040638
This guidance may change at the concepts of microattribution of nanopublications in order to incentivize contributions are changing with input from World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).
Consider using the framework proposed by Mazumdar for biostatisticians, but adapted to collaborative meta-analysis. For each of the following domains that you contributed to, document whether your contribution was Major/Moderate/Minor using the criteria and examples of Mazumdar et al in their Chart 1. Below are proposed based on Mazumdar et al:
- Data collection (lit searching, creation of PICO and BIAS tables, extracting results
- Major: Participated actively in regular meetings during data collection
- Moderate: Was an independent data abstractor
- Minor: provided advice as needed
- Manuscript reporting activities
- Major: prepared first draft of one section (background, methods, results, discussion)
- Moderate: preparted first draft one subsection such as statistics within the methods section or limitations within the discusison
- Minor: "Reviewed final manuscript, helped clarify some of results and wording of conclusions."
Reference
- Mazumdar M, Messinger S, Finkelstein DM, et al; Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Research Design (BERD) Key Function Committee of the Clinical and Translational Science (CTSA) Consortium. Evaluating Academic Scientists Collaborating in Team-Based Research: A Proposed Framework. Acad Med. 2015 May 19. [Epub ahead of print] PMID: 25993282.
###Analyses We encourage you to collaborate and make improvements to the analyses. However, you may also take the content, including images such as forest plots, from the analyses under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license.
###Software We encourage you to collaborate and make improvements to openMetaAnalysis itself. However, you may also take the content under the conditions of GNU GPLv3. An example of software under this license is the editor: