From 2022, journals will need to follow cOAlition S price transparency requirements to get paid. Find out more about the frameworks and potential benefits here.
An extension and elaboration of the SPIRIT checklist specific to n-of-1 trials aims to improve the quality and reporting of protocols for this trial type.
The Research Data Alliance has published standardised research data policies, but wider collaboration is needed to ensure they are supported and implemented.
Tips on disclosures of interest from the Medical Publishing Insights and Practices Initiative (MPIP).
A US court ruling finds reporting of many clinical trials of unapproved drugs in breach of the law. But responses to the ruling are uncertain.
A recent article in Nature reveals how dedicated data sharing infrastructure may be key to facilitating systematic research into peer review processes.
With a survey revealing that half of researchers have ghostwritten peer review reports, do peer review processes require reform?
Find out more about the TOP Factor, an alternative metric to the impact factor, evaluating academic journals based on open science policies.
Find out more about ISMPP’s guidance for navigating author non-responsiveness in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic.
Find out why guidance is needed and what’s covered in the new Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) guidelines.
PLOS ONE now offers Registered Reports, shifting peer review focus from results to the quality of study design. Is this part of the future of open science?
Find out more about the impact the new ICMJE disclosure form will have on authors publishing in medical journals.
With widespread and growing support for increased data sharing, what can we learn from the Yale Open Data Access (YODA) Project and its collaboration with Johnson & Johnson?
Many journals ask submitting authors to suggest recommended peer reviewers, potentially risking bias and misconduct. Do the benefits outweigh these risks?
We summarise the key changes to the ICMJE recommendations for authors and medical publication professionals.
Abstract ‘spin’ can distort a study’s findings and lead to inappropriate conclusions being drawn. But just how prevalent is this problem?