Talk:Biology Direct

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals 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.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

‹ The template below (WikiProject Open Access) is being considered for merging with WikiProject Open. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

Open Access Low‑importance

Biology Direct is part of WikiProject Open Access, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to Open Access and at improving other articles with the help of materials from Open Access sources. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Open AccessWikipedia:WikiProject Open/Open access task forceTemplate:WikiProject Open AccessOpen access

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Open Access to-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Creative Commons licensing (to replace Creative Commons license); Creative Commons Attribution License (currently a redirect), reproducible research (currently a redirect), supplementary material. Scholarly Open Access (currently a redirect)
Cleanup : Access2Research
Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stub-Class Open access articles.
Other : add {{WikiProject Open Access}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess;
- Check media files uploaded by the Open Access Media Importer for missing or incomplete categorization or lack of descriptions, or put the files into suitable Wikipedia articles. See also recent uploads of open-access files more generally.

Biology direct was known for its (at the time) unusual peer review practice -authors recruited the reports, and reviews were signed; as outlined in the present version of the WP article.

However, looking at their author info pages it appears Biology Direct returned to the traditional model, with anonymous reviewers selected by an editor? https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/about

--46.31.218.139 (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]