F1000: an overview and evaluation
Date | 10 July 2017 |
Pages | 364-371 |
DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-06-2017-0065 |
Published date | 10 July 2017 |
Author | Ann E. Williams |
Subject Matter | Library & information science,Librarianship/library management,Library & information services |
F1000: an overview
and evaluation
Ann E. Williams
Department of Communication, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of thispaper is to provide an overview and evaluation of F1000,a publishing outlet
and peer reviewsystem for research in the biomedical and life sciences.
Design/methodology/approach –The review chronicles the rise of F1000 and describes the site’s
functionalitiesand use capabilities.
Findings –The findings detail both the strengths and limitations of F1000 and point toward avenues for
continuedresearch and development.
Originality/value –This is the first review to provide a substantiveevaluation of F1000 for academics to
considerwhen adopting, using and researching the platform.
Keywords Scholarly publishing, F1000, Altmetrics, Academic social networks, Networked peer
review, Open peer review
Paper type Viewpoint
The primary purpose of this article is to provide a description, overview and evaluation of
F1000, a unique publishing outlet and peer review system for researchers in the biomedical and
life sciences. The article is organized into three parts: the first defines, describes and
conceptualizes F1000, chronicling its evolution and growth; the second reviews and details the
primary services provided by F1000; and the third evaluates and critiques the strengths and
limitations of F1000. The purpose of the review is to provide a resource for scholars to consider
when adopting, using and researching F1000 in current, future and ongoing scholarship.
What is F1000?
The Faculty of 1000 (also known as F1000) is an innovative publishing outlet and peer
review system for biomedical scholarship (Bornmann and Leydesdorff, 2013). The F1000
website (www.f1000.com) houses a variety of scholarly works in the domains of medicine
and the life sciences, including articles, postersand presentations of scientific, translational
and clinical research. The F1000 platform also hosts a digitally networked system of peer-
reviewers who select,review and rate biomedical articles on topics in their areasof expertise
(Li and Thelwall, 2012). Through the ratings of the F1000 reviewers, alternative biometrics
for measuring the impact of scientific work are developed and promoted(Huggett, 2012;Li
and Thelwall, 2012).
The development and evolution of F1000
F1000 was borne out of a desire to improve and supplement traditional biometrics that
measure the quality of scientific articles in the field of biomedicine (Huggett, 2012). It was
started in 2002 with the aim of using the recommendationsof F1000 Faculty Members (FMs)
The author would like to thank Seifu Adem for his research assistance.
ILS
118,7/8
364
Received30 June 2017
Accepted30 June 2017
Informationand Learning Science
Vol.118 No. 7/8, 2017
pp. 364-371
© Emerald Publishing Limited
2398-5348
DOI 10.1108/ILS-06-2017-0065
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2398-5348.htm
To continue reading
Request your trial