JournalReview: Digg for Medical Literature, Part VI

Okay, so far we have BioWizard, Dissect Medicine, MediNews and Onexamination– time for one more: JournalReview.org.

journalrevieworg.png

In conversations with friends, I have previously referred to sites like BioWizard and Dissect Medicine as a sort of “digital journal club,” so it is sort of neat to learn that’s how journalreview.org sees it, too:

In the academic world, “Journal Clubs” are a common way to discuss and critically question medical literature. The knowledge gained by this activity can be immeasurable, and often leads to ideas both relating to patient care and to future research. However, many clinicians are unable to participate in these academic activities. In addition, information shared within an individual journal club is seldom disseminated.

JournalReview is an international interdisciplinary Internet based unbiased forum for review of medical literature. Very much like an on-line journal club, we aim to provide a venue which will improve communication amongst physicians and lead to better understanding and interpretation of medical literature.

You can browse previously submitted articles by one of 28 specialties…
jrdc2

…or search PubMed from inside the JournalReview interface:
jrdc1

When you find the article in the PubMed search results that you wish to submit, can leave comments about it by clicking “Discuss Article,” send an article’s link to a friend by clicking “Email Article,” or rate the article on three different scales of one to five by clicking “Rate Article:”
rating

JournalReview is more like Biowizard than the others in that it only allows articles to be submitted from PubMed. Like BioWizard, this means it should encourage a user base of medical professionals where tools like Dissect Medicine which allow articles to be submitted from absolutely any URL.

However, where BioWizard has RSS and email alerts to keep users up to date on the articles most highly rated by users, JournalReview has no analogous feature. It is for this reason more than any other that BioWizard is still my favorite by far of the “Digg for Medical Literature” tools.

Related Posts

Onexamination.com (Digg for Medical Literature, Part V)

MediNews: Digg for Medical Literature, Part IV

Dissect Medicine: Spanish and German Editions

More notes on BioWizard (Digg for Medical Literature, Part 3.5)

BioWizard Enhancements: ‘Digg for Medical Literature’ Part III (Edited)

Dissect Medicine: ‘Digg for Medical Literature’, Part II

BioWizard: The start of ‘Digg for Medical Literature’?

6 thoughts on “JournalReview: Digg for Medical Literature, Part VI

  1. David,

    Not so much medical journals, but I always like to give faculty of 1000 as an early example of a journal club. Very different business models though.

  2. David,
    Thank you for mentioning JournalReview.org.

    I wanted to share with you some features at JournalReview.org not mentioned here. We are currently working on ways to make these features more obvious to visitors.

    1. JournalReview.org does offer RSS feeds. We are developing this further as we speak, but as of know, an RSS feed is available for each sub-specialty. For example, the Internal Medicine feed is here:
    http://journalreview.org/rss.php?specialty_id=22&sdesc=Internal+Medicine

    2. When a comment is left at JournalReview.org, the member leaving the comment has the option to share their question or feedback with the author as well as other experts on the topic.

    3. Please do check back with us in the coming months… as a number of new features are going to be integrated into the site.

    Thank you again for the feedback.
    Regards,
    Jeff

  3. Thank you for this information, Jeff!

    Regarding #1 in your comments, how does the user find these feeds? I don’t see them anywhere on the site.

    Regarding #2: How is the feedback communicated to the author or other experts on the topic?

    Looking forward to hearing more!

  4. Pingback: davidrothman.net » Blog Archive » More on JournalReview (Digg for Medical Literature, Part 6.5)

  5. Thanks so much for this great investigative work — v interesting! Just wanted to point out that you got the link for the OnExamination post wrong 🙂

  6. Hi Michael. I just tried each of the two links to that post- both worked.

    Weird.