
Open access and Plan S: what do key stakeholders think?
ISMPP’s first white paper, ‘A multistakeholder discussion on open access and medical publishing’ is now available.
A central online news resource for professionals involved in the development of medical publications and involved in publication planning and medical writing.
ISMPP’s first white paper, ‘A multistakeholder discussion on open access and medical publishing’ is now available.
Missed the 15th Annual Meeting of ISMPP? Read our meeting report to get up to speed!
Discover how to track the proliferation of initiatives aimed at improving the peer review process.
Feedback on the implementation guidance for Plan S highlights key themes for consideration.
Find out how we can all work towards universal health coverage this World Health Day to help achieve the WHO’s goal of #HealthForAll.
Discover how to develop an effective publications strategy for rare diseases with a recent article from the MAP newsletter.
Selective reporting of clinical trial outcomes may be widespread. This study reports instances occurring in CONSORT-endorsing medical journals.
Join other medical, science, and publications professionals and #BettertheBalance this International Women’s Day.
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.
Missed ISMPP EU 2019? Read our meeting report to get up to speed!
Missed ISMPP EU 2019? Read our meeting report to get up to speed!
The ICMJE recently updated its recommendations, providing guidance on issues such as use of preprint servers, conflict of interest reporting and journal metrics.
China has pledged its support for Plan S, an initiative striving to make the results of publicly funded research freely available immediately on publication.
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.
We take a look at the results of the first study evaluating the experiences of patient and public reviewers.