Template:Academic-written review: Difference between revisions
en>Trappist the monk (+author;) |
(No difference)
|
Revision as of 17:44, 29 July 2021
The 2024 version of this article was updated by an external expert under a dual publication model. The corresponding academic peer reviewed article was published in {{#property:P1433|from=}} and can be cited as: "Academic-written review". Cite journal requires |journal= (help) |
Usage
This template is based off the Academic Peer Reviewed template and is meant for Wikipedia articles updated as part of a dual publication model used by journals to incentivize scholarly contributions to Wikipedia. Academics and other experts are invited to contribute a peer-reviewed review article to the journal, and must create a corresponding Wikipedia version of that review article. Although the content should be similar, the peer-reviewed article and the corresponding Wikipedia article are textually different in order to ensure accessibility of the Wikipedia version to the community at large.
{{Academic-written review | wikidate = date (year) of update by review article author | journal = name of journal (can include wikilink) | title = | author = | date = publication date of corresponding review | volume = | issue = | pages = | pmid = pmid number | doi = identifier only | pmc = pmc id without the leading 'PMC' | url = url to open access page if available }}
Example with QID
{{Academic-written review|Q = Q38916407}}
Produces:
The 2024 version of this article was updated by an external expert under a dual publication model. The corresponding academic peer reviewed article was published in {{#property:P1433|from=Q38916407}} and can be cited as: Lua error in Module:Cite_Q at line 13: attempt to index field 'wikibase' (a nil value). |
Example without QID
{{Academic-written review | wikidate = 2016 | journal = [[Gene (journal)|Gene]] | title = {{#property:P1476|from=Q38916407}} | author = {{#property:P2093|from=Q38916407}} | date = {{#property:P577|from=Q38916407}} | volume = {{#property:P478|from=Q38916407}} | issue = {{#property:P433|from=Q38916407}} | pages = {{#property:P304|from=Q38916407}} | doi = {{#property:P356|from=Q38916407}} | pmid = {{#property:P698|from=Q38916407}} | pmc = {{#property:P932|from=Q38916407}} }}
Produces:
The 2016 version of this article was updated by an external expert under a dual publication model. The corresponding academic peer reviewed article was published in Gene and can be cited as: {{#property:P2093|from=Q38916407}} ({{#property:P577|from=Q38916407}}). "{{#property:P1476|from=Q38916407}}". Gene. {{#property:P478|from=Q38916407}} ({{#property:P433|from=Q38916407}}): {{#property:P304|from=Q38916407}}. doi:{{#property:P356|from=Q38916407}} Check |doi= value (help). PMC {{#property:P932|from=Q38916407}} Check |pmc= value (help). PMID {{#property:P698|from=Q38916407}} Check |pmid= value (help). Check date values in: |date= (help) |
Caveats
Note that this template transcludes the Cite Journal Template, and inherits one of the weaknesses/issues of said template. The author list must be formatted in a certain way or it will give errors when using the {{{vauthors}}}
parameter. If you use this template and populate it with info pulled from Wikidata, it will not format the author list in a way compatible with {{{vauthors}}}
. Rather than have each use of the template raise an error, this template uses the {{{authors}}}
instead. Unfortunately, the use of this parameter is discouraged because it does not contribute to a citation's metadata, and users consuming cs1|2 citations via the metadata will find that the citation is missing authors.
Categories for pages using these templates
- Category:Wikipedia articles with corresponding academic peer reviewed articles
- Category:Wikipedia articles with corresponding articles published in {{{journal}}}
See also
{{Academic peer reviewed}}
- a similar template for articles, where content has been published in a peer reviewed journal{{External peer review}}
- a similar template for articles reviewed externally but not full academic peer review