This draft does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Science This draft is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science 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.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience

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. Travelersdiagram (talk · contribs) has been paid by Qeios on their behalf. Their editing has included contributions to this article.

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: I had to fix some minor copyright issues. Please don't add copyright material to Wikipedia..

— Diannaa (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

One edit was made to cut a sentence in the History section that mentions the number of registered users ("In 2022, the platform had more than 15,000 registered scientists and over a million readers."). The sentence had a citation. What is the rationale or rule behind that cut? Isn't it common to mention the size of the user base?

Another cut was to the main section where it said Qeios is "archived in Portico and the British Library, and currently applying to be indexed by PubMed and Web of Science." This also had a citation. Again, I'm curious about the rationale for the cut. — Travelersdiagram (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

I addressed this question by rewording the two sections. Travelersdiagram (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

I removed the advertisement tag.

Some of the content here is from primary sources but for an academic journal, this subject is discussed in some good third party sources. Academic journals are rarely named in The New York Times, but this one is, and I think that is an indication that it is doing unusual innovation.

Lots of journals are logged at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals. If someone objects, they could further cut some sources and some claims here, but there are more sources here than typical and the summarization is fine. Other wiki editors already went through this for copyright checks and edits. Bluerasberry (talk) 19:50, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

The claim that articles "typically get around 10 peer reviews" sounds outlandish as it is, given how hard it is to recruit reviewers. Looking at the Qeios website, many reviews are very short (a few sentences) so it is misleading to call them peer reviews. And it is hard to find many articles with 10+ reviews.

The source for the claim does not give much detail or context, and should probably not be trusted on this point. Still, it would be nice to have some statistics of that sort about numbers of articles and numbers of reviews. Are such statistics available? It would be better to replace the claim by something more accurate, than to just remove it. Sylvain Ribault (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply