![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 14 February 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to F1000. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
![]() | The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE. Edits made by the below user(s) were last checked for neutrality on 31-12-2016 by WikiDan61.
|
Some potentially libellous material removed. Cloning jedi ( talk) 14:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
This page has the feel of an advertisement so I added the tag at the top Aaronatwpi ( talk) 06:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. |
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)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. |
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.'
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)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. |
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.
For F1000Poster- https://www.newswire.com/f1000-posters-over-100-conferences/78565
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)
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)
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 /info/en/?search=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)
@ 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)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. |
Larry.leung.f1000 ( talk) 10:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Larry.leung.f1000 ( talk) 10:38, 17 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:
/info/en/?search=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."
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)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. |
@ 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:
/info/en/?search=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."
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)
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)
I propose that the sections Faculty Opinions and Sciwheel be moved to Sciencenow Group at https://en.wikipedia.org/?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 /info/en/?search=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)
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. [1] 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. [2] In 2002, it introduced F1000Prime (later known as Faculty Opinions), which recommended scientific articles selected by its experts. [3] At first, F1000 was focused on biology, but it expanded to additional scientific fields over time. [4] For example, it started covering medical topics and journals in 2006. [5] As a result, for a while F1000 was divided into two separate websites for Biology and Medicine respectively. [6] In the Summer of 2013, it released F1000 Trials, which was focused on clinical research. [1] F1000 Workspace (later known as SciWheel) which provided software tools, to assist authors of academic works, was introduced in 2015. [3] The company was part of the Science Navigation Group until its acquisition by Taylor & Francis in January 2020. [7] 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. [7] Faculty Opinions (F1000Prime) was later acquired by a tech company called H1 in February 2022. [8] F1000 now only provides publishing and related services. [9]
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)
@ 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, 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
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)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 14 February 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to F1000. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
![]() | The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE. Edits made by the below user(s) were last checked for neutrality on 31-12-2016 by WikiDan61.
|
Some potentially libellous material removed. Cloning jedi ( talk) 14:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
This page has the feel of an advertisement so I added the tag at the top Aaronatwpi ( talk) 06:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. |
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)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. |
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.'
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)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. |
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.
For F1000Poster- https://www.newswire.com/f1000-posters-over-100-conferences/78565
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)
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)
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 /info/en/?search=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)
@ 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)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. |
Larry.leung.f1000 ( talk) 10:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Larry.leung.f1000 ( talk) 10:38, 17 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:
/info/en/?search=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."
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)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. |
@ 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:
/info/en/?search=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."
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)
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)
I propose that the sections Faculty Opinions and Sciwheel be moved to Sciencenow Group at https://en.wikipedia.org/?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 /info/en/?search=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)
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. [1] 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. [2] In 2002, it introduced F1000Prime (later known as Faculty Opinions), which recommended scientific articles selected by its experts. [3] At first, F1000 was focused on biology, but it expanded to additional scientific fields over time. [4] For example, it started covering medical topics and journals in 2006. [5] As a result, for a while F1000 was divided into two separate websites for Biology and Medicine respectively. [6] In the Summer of 2013, it released F1000 Trials, which was focused on clinical research. [1] F1000 Workspace (later known as SciWheel) which provided software tools, to assist authors of academic works, was introduced in 2015. [3] The company was part of the Science Navigation Group until its acquisition by Taylor & Francis in January 2020. [7] 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. [7] Faculty Opinions (F1000Prime) was later acquired by a tech company called H1 in February 2022. [8] F1000 now only provides publishing and related services. [9]
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)
@ 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, 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
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)