A central online news resource for professionals involved in the development of medical publications and involved in publication planning and medical writing.
Explore how you can adapt and innovate to more effectively communicate medical and scientific information by attending the 15th Annual Meeting of ISMPP, 15–17 April 2019, in National Harbor, Maryland, USA.
A recent blog for The Scholarly Kitchen suggests mergers, acquisitions, and new regulations are increasingly changing the state of scholarly communications.
As an increasing number of journals pilot transparent peer review, data indicate that open peer review does not compromise the process – at least when reviewers can stay anonymous.
Transparency and reproducibility are now synonymous with medical publications, but actions speak louder than words. A recent study examines whether progress has been made.
Improving gender parity in medical publishing: what’s going on and how you can get involved.
Missed ISMPP EU 2019? Read our meeting report to get up to speed!
Free-to-access articles plus how you can get involved this World Cancer Day and beyond.
Missed ISMPP EU 2019? Read our meeting report to get up to speed!
Find out why financial relationships are not always correctly disclosed and how better transparency could be achieved.
The ICMJE recently updated its recommendations, providing guidance on issues such as use of preprint servers, conflict of interest reporting and journal metrics.
The fifth edition of the STM report provides an in-depth review of current issues and recent trends within the scientific and scholarly publishing industry.
A free 90-minute webinar from ISMPP, open to all.
China has pledged its support for Plan S, an initiative striving to make the results of publicly funded research freely available immediately on publication.
An article in the MAP newsletter examines how publication professionals could help to increase preclinical publishing standards.
In an article published in The New York Times, Professor Aaron E. Carroll critiques the peer review system and provides a number of suggestions for improvements.
An analysis by Science Magazine of Retraction Watch’s new database challenges a number of common perceptions surrounding retractions and reveals some important key themes.