Talk:Canadian Medical Association Journal

Canada Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Academic Journals

	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.

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Top five journals

Is the Canadian Medical Association Journal really in the top five journal category? Its impact factor is 5.941, whereas the impact factor of Annals of Internal Medicine is 13.114. I would imagine that the Annals would be in the top 5, not CMAJ! Andrew73 21:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this involves web statistics rather than impact factor. The Annals is not free (alas, because I like it). JFW | T@lk 00:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about the web statistics, though I think the impact factor is probably a better reflection of the journal ranking. I'll take this up with Nephron. Andrew73 00:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article says:

"[The CMAJ] is considered to be one of the top five general medical journals..." [emphasis added]

See the about CMAJ link. Annals of Internal Medicine isn't a general medical journal. It is a journal of internal medicine. Nephron 01:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, if you go to the ISI Web of Knowledge, Journal Citation Reports, where the impact factors are calculated and the journals are ranked, the category is "medicine, general & internal," so general medical and internal medicine journals are actually lumped together! Andrew73 12:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Annals is internal medicine- which is the main body of general medicine. You guys are also all forgetting Nature Medicine (the general medicine sister journal of Nature), which has a much high impact factor than BMJ or JAMA. Thus, we should not say CMAJ is in the top 5. 71.243.38.143

Nature Medicine is a basic sciences journal (i.e. it is about "tomorrow's medicine").[1] Unlike the other journals mentioned above (BMJ, JAMA etc.), it is not a journal directed at clinicans (i.e. physicians that manage patients) for clinical management. Nephron T|C 06:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would the CMAJ not have been in the top five? I can not fathom how it could remain to be, having lost almost its entire long-term editorial staff; nor how it could remain to be, having practiced odious censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.112.20 (talk) 05:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Top six

The impact factor for CMAJ is 7.402, putting it behind the Archives of Internal Medicine at 8.016, which is ranked number 5. I'm pulling this information from a recent BMJ article that discusses impact factor, [2]. I've made this change in the main article. Andrew73 20:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that BMJ article was about how people are taking Science Citation Index impact factors too seriously :) Are you comfortable with taking them out to 3 decimal places?

I've always heard of NEJM, JAMA, BMJ and Lancet were the "big four", and either Annals of Internal Medicine or CMAJ in fifth place. And that was before Hoey was fired. They may not be meeting that standard any more, sadly. I don't feel too strongly about this one way or the other, but I would lean towards a citation, rather than "It is considered". I was taught never to use passive voice. Nbauman 23:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, more important than citation analysis, I'd like to mention some good articles the CMAJ has published. Nbauman 23:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Link

Hi, I found a broken link inside the reference, CMAJ Editorial Fellowship, since I'm not sure the exact link, can anybody correct it? Thanks! Jesslynn lee86 (talk) 07:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Canadian Medical Association Journal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060303001746/http://www.cbc.ca:80/story/science/national/2006/03/01/cmaj-editors060301.html to http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2006/03/01/cmaj-editors060301.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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} 03:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]