Researchers continue to use the impact factor as a metric for their career progression, but is it a matter of misconstrued peer pressure?
An analysis of data sharing statements reveals that open data may lead to a citation advantage.
Help and guidance for writing narrative reviews and Delphi consensus statements.
Following the revised guidance on Plan S, Bernd Pulverer questions whether cOAlition S is making the most of the opportunity to push for open science.
Find out how to get involved in this year’s activities on #QualityinPeerReview.
A new tool from MPIP provides easily accessible information on open access options for industry-funded research.
The tasks and responsibilities of peer reviewers are examined as a step towards reaching a consensus on their role in biomedical publishing
Ruairi Mackenzie provides a personal account of attending a “fake” conference run by Conference Series in a recent article for Technology Networks.
A recent preprint sheds light on just how volatile journal impact factors can be.
Does professional medical writing support impact the quality, ethics and timeliness of clinical trial reporting?
Findings of a systematic review show working with professional medical writers positively affects measures of quality, ethics and timeliness.
The MAP newsletter explores an issue faced by medical publication professionals.
Join CBI to discuss challenges, innovations and best practice in medical publishing and communications.
In an article in Current Medical Research & Opinion, three leading medical publishing organisations provide guidance on dealing with predatory publishers.
Depositing preprints on bioRxiv results in advantages in terms of citations and Altmetrics, according to recently published findings.
Authors of an article in Nature believe it is time to move beyond the journal impact factor and discuss what next-generation metrics should look like.
Open source software is often used in science but is left uncited in many publications: researchers urge authors to make a change.