FOR Medical Affairs Professionals. BY Medical Affairs Professionals. Collaborate and network with a growing community of global Medical Affairs Professionals at the MAPS 2018 Annual Meeting, taking place February 25-27 … Continue Reading Collaborate and network with global Medical Affairs Professionals at the MAPS 2018 Annual Meeting
Gain insights into medical publication trends through engaging expert presentations and interactive peer-to-peer discussions at the 2018 European Meeting of the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP). Join us … Continue Reading Join Us at the 2018 European Meeting of ISMPP!
Intimate in scale and in-depth in nature, the 17th Annual International Publication Planning Meeting represents a convergence of hot-button issues and unique networking opportunities, all in beautiful San Diego (February … Continue Reading Register now for the 17th Annual International Publication Planning Meeting
Understanding and use of real world evidence (RWE) is on the increase in the medical community. While evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is still considered to be the gold … Continue Reading Why do we need real world evidence?
Gender bias is inherent in scholarly systems. Men publish at higher rates and receive more peer review invitations than women, while male PhD-educated scientists are more likely than their female … Continue Reading Gender bias in publishing
The benefits of publishing research open access are numerous and well-known. Allowing a paper to be available to all can increase citation rates and drive public engagement. But is the … Continue Reading The ‘open access effect’: freely available academic books
Despite many journals now requiring an author contributions statement, the relative involvement of each co-author in a publication is not quantifiable. Researchers calling for a quantitative approach have proposed a … Continue Reading Quantifying author contribution in scientific publications
Although most scientists understand the importance of publishing all study data, it remains a fact that articles describing data that do not confirm the author’s hypothesis are less likely to … Continue Reading Celebrating the positives in negative results
The argument for blinded peer review seems less and less plausible, argues Hilda Bastian in a recent post for PLOS blogs. She suggests that such blinding constitutes a trade-off between … Continue Reading Is blinded peer review fair?
It can be difficult for the busy research scientist to find the time to sit and write manuscripts while also completing experiments, managing funding applications and handling teaching responsibilities. Yet, … Continue Reading Can computers really write manuscripts?
Following the tenth anniversary of Open Access Week, the Director of the Australasian Open Access Strategy Group, Virginia Barbour, has written about the evolution of open access and the obstacles … Continue Reading Infrastructure development is required to realise the full potential of Open Access
A major factor in the under-representation of women in research, gender bias is widespread in scholarly activities, including publications. A report published earlier this year by the American Geophysical Union … Continue Reading The ‘networking effect’: how author networks can cause gender bias in peer review
Predatory journals are a hot topic among publishing professionals, however the issue is now becoming more widely known outside of academic circles. A recent article in the New York Times … Continue Reading A “new and ugly symbiosis”? Why do some scientists choose to publish in predatory journals?
Three steps to transparency in clinical research: a new white paper from the Collaboration for Research Integrity and Transparency
Integrity and transparency are paramount to the accuracy, accessibility and credibility of medical research. Given that clinical evidence informs market approval of medical products, missing or inaccurate clinical trial data … Continue Reading Three steps to transparency in clinical research: a new white paper from the Collaboration for Research Integrity and Transparency
Fake reviews continue to be a serious concern in medical publishing, putting data integrity and trust in the scientific community at risk. As recently reported by Retraction Watch, a new … Continue Reading New tool to identify fakes in the peer review process
According to the Institute of Medicine (IOM), patient and public involvement is necessary if clinical practice guidelines are to be reliable and of the highest standard. As part of “Clinical … Continue Reading Are patients participating in clinical practice guideline development?
Recently, F1000Research published the first article of their new Registered Report initiative. The publisher is the first to go a step further with this publication format, combining the Registered Report … Continue Reading Registered Reports: enhancing transparency and reproducibility in scientific publication