Talk:HighWire

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Stanford University Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Stanford University, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Stanford University 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.Stanford UniversityWikipedia:WikiProject Stanford UniversityTemplate:WikiProject Stanford UniversityStanford University articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Business This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles 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.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Is this page kind of advertisement? "With our partner publishers we produce 71 of the 200 most-frequently-cited journals." Who are WE? Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.203.216 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 3 July 2007‎

The article by Vanhecke referred to in ref. 3 contains serious methodological errors, most calculation are flawed, and its major conclusions are unjustified. The paper should be formally withdrawn as it misrepresents both the value and role of PubMed and Highwire Press. This has been pointed out to the author (Vanhecke), Highwire, PubMed and the editor of Comput Biol Med. Responses there were none. Reinhard Wentz, Dipl. Bibl. London. April 2008

Copied from User talk:Nurg

Hi, your last edit on HighWire Press removed a claim on the grounds that it failed verification, but the claim was already given in the page that was cited: https://www.highwirepress.com/about-us says "over 3000 journals, books, reference works, and proceedings." They used to have a great big list of journals and books, but I don't see it anymore. Is that why you believe the claim fails verification? ~Anachronist (talk) 23:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The claim was "HighWire Press hosts the largest repository of peer-reviewed content, with over 3500 journals from scholarly publishers". If they now say their platform "supports over 3000 journals, books, reference works, and proceedings", it sounds like it no longer hosts over 3500 journals (excluding other works). Some publishers have left HighWire in recent times, so I believe the number is dropping. Also, the claim to be the largest repository of peer-reviewed content needs a reference, preferably an independent one. By the way, the page cited was https://highwirepress.com, not https://www.highwirepress.com/about-us. I certainly have no objection to reliably sourced, up-to-date info about their scope being added, but as more publishers leave, it is a changing figure. Nurg (talk) 00:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]