Discover how to track the proliferation of initiatives aimed at improving the peer review process.
Authors and editors are asked to be vigilant, and advice to peer reviewers is updated, amidst scandal of reviewer who asked for multiple self-citations during reviews.
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.
Improving gender parity in medical publishing: what’s going on and how you can get involved.
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.
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.
We take a look at the results of the first study evaluating the experiences of patient and public reviewers.
A global survey examines the current peer review landscape and provides suggestions to combat ‘reviewer fatigue’.
Journals and funders pledge to publish peer review reports in a move to increase transparency of the publication process.
eLife is trialling a novel form of open peer review that gives authors more control over their response to reviewers.
Get up to date on how gender influences the academic publishing process and what can be done to establish gender equity.
Mary Yianni, Publisher at Taylor and Francis, reviews the different models of peer review and the emerging role of preprints.
Jonathan Patience, Senior Editor at Taylor & Francis, outlines the pathway to publication.
Missed the 14th Annual Meeting of ISMPP? Read the second part of our meeting report to get up to speed!
Researchers argue that lay review will increase the relevance of medical publications: a new study aims to evaluate its impact.
Can preprints be cited in the same way as papers published in a peer reviewed journal, or do we need to define new standards?