Talk:F1000 (publisher)

Untitled

Some potentially libellous material removed. Cloning jedi (talk) 14:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

There is still the line on this page where it says "F1000 has been criticized for unclear review standards". That could be said of pretty much every journal. I had added in 2014 that this criticism comes from the CEO and Editor of a well-known competitor, a subscription-based closed access journal on scholarly kitchen, a blog platform of many people across the closed-access publishing industry. Someone removed this sentence right away. But scholarlykitchen is always criticizing open-access journals and preprints. It's the official blog of an industry association. Their main theme is that you cannot trust preprints and open access is the wrong approach. It's not a bad website, but it's very far from an independent source. It's like saying that the National Review criticised Joe Biden. I think some criticism of F1000 (there is some, as with most publishers) should be sourced either from an independent source, hedged as coming from a publishing industry blog platform or entirely removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maximilianh (talk • contribs) 09:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Advertisement?

This page has the feel of an advertisement so I added the tag at the top Aaronatwpi (talk) 06:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

External links

The link: Telegraph article on F1000 evaluation it is not what it says. It is a publication of a particular evaluation by Telegraph. What the title implies is that it is a cover by Telegraph of the F1000 evaluation process. I think it is deliberately promotional and it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kantale (talk • contribs) 12:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Faculty of 1000. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140304105317/http://www.mrc.ac.uk/Achievementsimpact/MRCe-Val2009/Publications/index.htm to http://www.mrc.ac.uk/Achievementsimpact/MRCe-Val2009/Publications/index.htm#P123_12359

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Update the brand name

• Specific text to be added or removed: Please add'F1000' and delete 'Faculty of 1000'.
• Reason for the change: 'F1000' is the current brand name. It was formerly known as 'Faculty of 1000'.
• References supporting change: Please find the links to some news about this acquisition:

https://www.infotoday.eu/Articles/News/Featured-News/Taylor-and-Francis-Acquires-F1000-Research-136024.aspx https://www.thebookseller.com/news/taylor-francis-buys-f1000-research-ltd-1150791

Larry.leung.f1000 (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. courtesy ping @Larry.leung.f1000: IAmChaos 06:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Update the intro paragraph

• Specific text to be added or removed: Please delete 'Faculty of 1000 (abbreviated F1000) is a publisher of services for life scientists and clinical researchers. It was acquired by Taylor & Francis Group in January 2020.'

Please add 'F1000 (formerly known as Faculty of 1000) provides open research publishing solutions and services to organizations such as the European Commission, Wellcome, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, as well as directly to researchers through its own publishing platform, F1000Research. F1000 is wholly owned by the Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa Group company.'

• Reason for the change: The brand name is changed after the acquisition. The company also expands the publishing solutions and services, not only for life scientists and clinical researchers.
• References supporting change: Please find a few links for supporting-

http://mandasoft.com/acquisition/?Source=segmentView&SearchID=C102970797 https://www.infodocket.com/2020/01/10/scholarly-publishing-taylor-francis-acquires-f1000-research/ https://www.thebookseller.com/news/taylor-francis-buys-f1000-research-ltd-1150791 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00496-z https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/gates-foundation-joins-shift-towards-open-access-platforms https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/901723 https://sciencebusiness.net/framework-programmes/news/new-eu-open-peer-review-system-stirs-debate

Larry.leung.f1000 (talk) 16:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The proposed lead is clearly promotional in tone. This reads like something on a corporate website, not an encyclopaedia. ;; Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk  22:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Update history

• Specific text to be added or removed: To add

In 2010, F1000 launched F1000Posters to enable researchers to openly and freely share their conference posters and slides. In 2013, F1000 launched its own open research publishing platform, F1000Research, with the industry’s first mandatory open data policy, framed around what later would become the FAIR principles. In 2014, F1000Research published a failed replication study regarding the highly prominent but controversial STAP stem cells. It has reinforced the importance of rapid publication, data sharing and transparent peer review. In 2015, F1000Research published its 1000th article. It also pioneered the use of ‘living and interactive figures’ embedded within research articles.

• Reason for the change: to add what happened in between 2010 and 2017.

• References supporting change:

For F1000Poster- https://www.newswire.com/f1000-posters-over-100-conferences/78565

For F1000Research- https://finance.yahoo.com/news/f1000research-provides-researchers-fast-transparent-133000125.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAANqHtWdXYz97zb0Xg2xk1NI5uiLQ-DIBhRW4bPbssm7YcfKnMsqCfINAG9Auxci1s9xFKZiQehB5FLwOr0iQsVJkoLGumRyQzofjtLyxu1dC9Yg9p75Zq1vsvLVLqh6v90c7iwI0lqhsexyLKn-RZW-K2FOdDJwB4EuNUTCo7Gvk

For 2014 F1000Research published a failed replication study- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4995676/

For 2015 'living and interactive figures'- https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/475419

Larry.leung.f1000 (talk) 12:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

•  Not done The text is copied verbatim from their website. That causes two problems: 1/ the text is not neutral and encyclopedic and even worse: 2/ constitutes a copyright violation. As for the references that you provided, they are not independent because they are either directly published by F1000 or press releases provided by F1000 (and, again, this makes the text non-neutral, which illustrates why such sources are not acceptable). --Randykitty (talk) 13:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, I've deleted the previous comments as I added it wrongly to this thread. Sorry again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larry.leung.f1000 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 14 February 2022

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus was against moving to the proposed title. (non-admin closure) ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 06:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

---

Faculty of 1000 → F1000 – 'F1000' is the current brand name. It was formerly known as 'Faculty of 1000'. When one searches F1000 on google, F1000.com appears. F1000's business of open research F1000Research was acquired by Taylor & Francis Group in 2020. Please find the M&A information at http://mandasoft.com/acquisition/?Source=segmentView&SearchID=C102970797. Larry.leung.f1000 (talk) 15:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Just to add, as I am aware of the URL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F1000 houses other variations of F1000, is it possible to change the title (highlighted in the screen shot) of the page to F1000? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larry.leung.f1000 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Larry.leung.f1000: Do you think that this page is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for F1000? Please explain the reason further. Sawol (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Sawol: No, there are other topics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F1000. F1000 was formerly known as Faculty of 1000. Is it possible to change the page name to "F1000 (Faculty of 1000)"? I have also raised another request to update the intro paragraph. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larry.leung.f1000 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

F1000 (Faculty of 1000) is not an acceptable title, per WP:NCDAB. 162 etc. (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, no primary topic. No objection to F1000 (website) or similar. 162 etc. (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment User:Larry.leung.f1000 has a disclosed COI. 162 etc. (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• oppose no point in overwriting a dab page and merging it into a giant hatnote here; and it doens't appear to be the primary topic, so also no point in displacing that page to F1000 (disambiguation) -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment This page could be moved to F1000 (publisher) or as pointed out before F1000 (website) -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@65.92.246.142: F1000 (publisher) is more accurate. I will make another request to move once this discussion is closed. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larry.leung.f1000 (talk • contribs) 12:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Delete Faculty Opinions

• Specific text to be added or removed: Please delete the section of 'Faculty Opinions'

• Reason for the change: It is no longer a service provided by F1000 after the acquisition by Taylor & Francis (part of Informa).

• References supporting change: https://facultyopinions.com/blog/f1000prime-is-now-faculty-opinions/

Larry.leung.f1000 (talk) 10:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Larry.leung.f1000 (talk) 10:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

That seems a violation of WP:RECENTISM. Wikipedia is not only a record of what is right now, rather it also covers history. WP:NOTNEWS Wikipedia is not a news source. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• The reference provided does not state that Faculty Opinions is part of F1000Research or not. It only states that the name changed after F1000Research was sold. It doesn't say anything about who owns Faculty Opinions. So the reference provided does not support the nature of the request -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 04:41, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@65.92.246.142: Understood that Wikipedia also covers history as well as maintains accurate information. The service 'Faculty Opinions' is not provided by F1000 now. It is a service provided by Sciencenow Group. Please refer to below two sources:

• Bulleted list item

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitek_Tracz - According to this wikipedia page, "In January 2020, F1000 Research was acquired by Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa Company. Sciencenow Group continues to offer the literature evaluation service, now branded Faculty Opinions, alongside Sciwheel, a reference management solution."

• Bulleted list item

https://sciencenow.com/ - According to Sciencenow's website, Faculty Opinions is one of Sciencenow group's services providing "personalized recommendations of the best research articles in biology and medicine by the world's largest group of leading scientists".

This service is provided by another company, so I've requested to delete it on an F1000 wikipedia article.

Larry.leung.f1000 (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete Sciwheel

• Specific text to be added or removed: Please delete the section of 'Sciwheel'

• Reason for the change: It is no longer a service provided by F1000 after the acquisition by Taylor & Francis (part of Informa).

• References supporting change: https://sciwheel.com/blog/f1000workspace-is-now-sciwheel/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larry.leung.f1000 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

That seems a violation of WP:RECENTISM. Wikipedia is not only a record of what is right now, rather it also covers history. WP:NOTNEWS Wikipedia is not a news source. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• The reference you are using does not mention either way who owns Sciwheel, only that the name changed after F1000Research was sold. It doesn't say if Sciwheel is part of F1000Research or not, so the reference does not support your claim -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 04:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@65.92.246.142: Understood that Wikipedia also covers history as well as maintains accurate information. The service 'Sciwheel' is not provided by F1000 now. It is a service provided by Sciencenow Group. Please refer to below two sources:

• Bulleted list item

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitek_Tracz - According to this wikipedia page, "In January 2020, F1000 Research was acquired by Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa Company. Sciencenow Group continues to offer the literature evaluation service, now branded Faculty Opinions, alongside Sciwheel, a reference management solution."

• Bulleted list item

https://sciencenow.com/ - According to Sciencenow's website, Sciwheel is one of Sciencenow group's services providing "a rich suite of tools to help with writing, collaborating, reference management and preparation for publishing in the journal of your choice."

This service is provided by another company, so I've requested to delete it on an F1000 wikipedia article.

Larry.leung.f1000 (talk) 14:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 1 March 2022

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian (talk) 19:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

---

Faculty of 1000 → F1000 (publisher) – 'F1000' is the current name for the publisher. It was formerly known as 'Faculty of 1000'. This request was based on the suggestions made by the moderators in the previous request. Larry.leung.f1000 (talk) 19:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support, this was proposed at the last RM with no objections. 162 etc. (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nominator. --Spekkios (talk) 03:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Section move proposal

I propose that the sections Faculty Opinions and Sciwheel be moved to Sciencenow Group at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Science_Navigation_Group&action=edit&redlink=1. These sections are more related to the topic of Sciencenow Group according to the development of Faculty Opinions and Sciwheel as described on Vitec Tracz's career at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitek_Tracz. Sciencenow Group continues to offer the literature evaluation service, now branded Faculty Opinions, [8] alongside Sciwheel, a reference management solution. Larry.leung.f1000 (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Creating a new article such as Sciencenow Group requires work in finding appropriate sources, summarising notable information, and judging notability. If someone creates that article with good sources, then shifting the main parts of Faculty Opinions and Sciwheel from here to there, while retaining brief summaries here and cross links using {{main}}, and updating here with the appropriate references, could become viable. Providing good sources might help motivated someone willing to do the work. Boud (talk) 19:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Request for changes

Hi. My name is Larry and I work for F1000. I'd like to propose some changes to the page following WP:COI. F1000 has requested some poor changes in the past, but I have since become more wiki-savvy, gotten help, and I think I can make better contributions now.

First, I'd like to suggest the one-sentence "Creation" and "Ownership Changes" sections be consolidated into a proper, expanded "History" section. I've prepared a draft History section below for consideration:

Proposed changes

History Faculty of 1000 was founded in 2000 by publishing entrepreneur Vitek Tracz in London. Initially, it was named after the 1,000 experts it had reviewing academic works, but over time F1000 expanded to more than 8,000 members. In 2002, it introduced F1000Prime (later known as Faculty Opinions), which recommended scientific articles selected by its experts. At first, F1000 was focused on biology, but it expanded to additional scientific fields over time. For example, it started covering medical topics and journals in 2006. As a result, for a while F1000 was divided into two separate websites for Biology and Medicine respectively. In the Summer of 2013, it released F1000 Trials, which was focused on clinical research. F1000 Workspace (later known as SciWheel) which provided software tools, to assist authors of academic works, was introduced in 2015. The company was part of the Science Navigation Group until its acquisition by Taylor & Francis in January 2020. As part of the deal, founder Vitek Tracz remained the owner of Prime and Workspace, leaving the new F1000 (and F1000Research) owned by Taylor & Francis. Faculty Opinions (F1000Prime) was later acquired by a tech company called H1 in February 2022. F1000 now only provides publishing and related services. In July 2017, F1000 launched Open Research Central, a "central portal for open research publishing". The model has been running on F1000Research since 2013 and current partners include the Wellcome Trust's "Wellcome Open Research", Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's "Gates Open Research", and University College London's "UCL Child Health Open Research". I'm putting this here to indicate current content I suggest trimming, as it is all cited to primary sources, creating WP:UNDUE issues References

Thank you in advance for taking the time to consider my edits. Pinging @Karlaz1: and @Crawdaunt:, who helped my colleague on the Taylor & Francis page and seem to have compatible topical interests with this page. Best regards. Larry.leung.f1000 (talk) 15:11, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Larry,

I will check over these edits and the page when I have time. A cursory look looks good. Right now just acknowledging the ping. Cheers - Crawdaunt (talk) 13:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok @Larry.leung.f1000 I had a chance to look it over. Was happy to make much of it wholesale. I reduced the granular details of the course of F1000 publishing in the field of medicine, and removed the SciWheel part as this is covered later in the services offered by F1000. For now I've kept Open Research Central, as I don't see how this service is different/lesser from others in the section. Each funding organization is a major and respected body, so I'm not sure there is any COI or WP:DUE concern? But I've added citation needed tags to each funder to indicate that it would be better if there was a 3rd party source cited for that info. Certainly the new History section is good, and a better base to build from than the previous 1-sentence sections. Cheers - Crawdaunt (talk) 05:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Crawdaunt:. I'd also like to suggest a rework of the Services section. In a nutshell, I'm looking to more clearly distinguish between historical and current services to avoid confusing or misleading the reader; while also replacing uncited or poorly cited content with a proper summary of independent literature. I've put together an annotated draft showing the proposed changes here. If you're willing to give it a lookover, let me know what you think. Larry.leung.f1000 (talk) 14:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry just getting back to this. Honestly it's difficult to parse the extent of the proposed changes in your link. You've got a much better handle on what F1000 current services are, and I can agree with a better distinction between current and past services offered. I know WP:COI discourages editors with COI from editing, but it would be a lot easier if you could just implement the changes you want, and I (or others) could review whether any reversions or further editing is really warranted...

Alternately, rather than putting forth the entire set of changes, it would be easier to parse if you just made individual edit requests here. Rather than re-writing the whole article at once, and asking other editors to evaluate whole article at once, breaking it into pieces would be easier to process. -- Crawdaunt (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

@Crawdaunt: Hello, I'm Martha and I've taken on this project after Larry's departure from the company. Per your feedback, I made a few changes and added detailed edit summaries. Look good so far? Most of my changes will be pretty mundane, but I do want to request you look at the sentence starting with "The journal has been criticized for unclear peer-review standards..." It is cited to an op-ed written by a competitor and I don't think I should remove it myself. MarthaAttardGialanze (talk) 16:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Martha,

Thanks for making those edits. I've gone through and assessed the current article. Looks good overall. Some comments:

1. I took out the criticized line. I agree it was not appropriate re WP:DUE as it was written largely based on speculation about a system that, at the time, had yet to be implemented fully. The concerns in that article were also addressed later in the year. Flash-in-the-pan stuff not appropriate re WP:DUE (in my opinion).

2. I removed the reddit thread sentence. See WP:RS and WP:DUE. If you have a more formal reference to suggest this was an event of sufficient notoriety, it could be re-added with an alternate reference.

3. The "previous services" section is a bit confusing at the moment. Everything is written in present tense? If this is because each service still exists, but is no longer operated by F1000, perhaps it would be good to includin a line to explaining this. Ideally indicating the current owners, and with WP links to any relevant WP pages of current owners.

Cheers -- Crawdaunt (talk) 11:54, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Crawdaunt:. For the next step, for each sub-section of the Services section, I removed content that was un-cited, not supported by the citation, or just cited to F1000's own website; then replaced it with similar content that was cited to independent scholarly works and actually states what the cited source says.

Let me know if you have any feedback or if I'm making too many edits at once. MarthaAttardGialanze (talk) 16:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Martha,

I just made an edit to change wording a bit. The word "experts" is a bit vague in the Faculty Opinions section. Is that the official title? Or are these active researchers? editors? science communicators? If there's a way to re-write with a bit more clarity that might be good.

I'm also not sure the second paragraph of Faculty Opinions is warranted, particularly if it's a former service. It reads a bit like an ad-copy at the moment, and the jist of it is already given in the first paragraph. In general, re: WP:DUE describing the system in so much detail, including vernacular like Faculties and Sub-sections, and how there are top-ten lists, with paper ratings... I think this sort of detail would be ok on a page summarizing different altmetric systems, but here it's reading a bit like a sales pitch for how great the system is.

SciWheel section suffers a bit of the same problem. There's an overly-long summary of the service that reads like an ad-copy espousing the benefits of using the service. For instance "SciWheel helped users find, organize, format, and attach referenced citations..." isn't appropriate verbage. That's the goal of the company I'm sure, but whether the software accomplished that is another question. More neutral verbage might be: "SciWheel was a citation manager platform operated by F1000. SciWheel further offered article recommendations based on a user's existing reference library." And honestly... unless SciWheel was somehow special, it doesn't feel like it deserves more attention than that. Many citation managers exist, including currently-operational ones that are large enough to deserve their own wiki pages (e.g. Mendeley, Zotero). So to have a section talking about SciWheel like it's this unique thing offered only by F1000 is a bit disingenuous.

For now I've left both in place, but it feels like either the content should be reduced, and/or revised to put it in a broader context. For instance, describing Faculty Opinions in light of other, admittedly more famous, altmetric systems in broader use. Or placing SciWheel in the context of the Wiki Reference_management_softwares article. Crawdaunt (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Crawdaunt:. I shortened the "Previous services" section based on your feedback. Let me know what you think.

While the cited sources often use the term "experts"[1], the use of title-caps in citation 3 for "F1000 Faculty Members (FMs)" infers that this was their official title.

I also drafted a proposed expanded introduction if you don't mind taking a look. Thanks for all your help.

F1000 (formerly "Faculty of 1000") is an open research publisher for scientists, scholars, and clinical researchers. It is one of the more well-known services that conduct a peer-review after, rather than before, publishing a research article. Initially, F1000 was named after the 1,000 faculty members that performed peer-reviews, but over time F1000 expanded to more than 8,000 members. When F1000 was acquired by Taylor & Francis Group in January 2020, it kept the publishing services. F1000Prime (AKA Faculty Opinions) and F1000 Workspace (AKA Sciwheel) were acquired by different brands.

MarthaAttardGialanze (talk) 16:12, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

MarthaAttardGialanze (talk) 16:12, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Looks good :) Made that introduction edit. Removed the "one of the more well-known..." line. A statement like that is a clear instance of a WP:BIAS or WP:NPOV issue. For instance, even the Wiki entry for Nature (Journal) doesn't say "Nature is a premier journal..." or "Nature is amongst the best known..." It just says "Nature is a British weekly scientific journal founded and based in London, England." Just as a note for future editing.

Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! Hope the conclusion of these edits, which I am trying to keep within the bounds of WP:DUE etc... are also satisfactory for your employer.

Cheers -- Crawdaunt (talk) 08:53, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I haven't been here in a while. I agree. Thank you. I just added the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the platform names because I think it might be useful to mention some practical implications.Karlaz1 (talk) 14:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Request to remove outdated sentences

As previously disclosed, I work for F1000. I wanted to flag an issue with the following portion of the page from the Services section:

"It publishes articles, blog posts, and has a section called "collections" for things like posters and slide presentations, but is primarily focused on articles. Users can click "Indexed articles" to only see articles that have passed a peer review."

I previously added this content based on citation 12. It's a good reliable source, but it's from 2015 so the information is out-dated or incorrect. For example, F1000 no longer has an "index articles" button. It has a filter option. The F1000 team does blogs, but that's not really a service offered to authors/users. Collections are not limited to posters and slide presentations. Pinging @Crawdaunt: who chipped in on my previous requests. Best regards MarthaAttardGialanze (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @MarthaAttardGialanze:, seems reasonable. Can I ask if you could write a proposed edit? Not sure exactly what the request is in terms of what the final content should look like. Cheers -- Crawdaunt (talk) 21:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@Crawdaunt: I suggest the following modified replacement sentence:

"It publishes articles and "collections" of other research content. Users can filter articles to see only those that have passed peer review."

MarthaAttardGialanze (talk) 15:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I've made the requested edit with a minor alteration to clarify what "other research content" might entail. Now reads:

It publishes articles and "collections" of other research content such as presentations. Users can filter articles to see only those that have passed peer review.

Cheers -- Crawdaunt (talk) 07:32, 15 March 2023 (UTC)