[VIDEO] Preprints and peer review – feedback from the 14th Annual Meeting of ISMPP
Mary Yianni, Publisher at Taylor and Francis, reviews the different models of peer review and the emerging role of preprints.
[VIDEO] The submission process from the publisher’s point of view
Jonathan Patience, Senior Editor at Taylor & Francis, outlines the pathway to publication.
Meeting report: summary of the 14th Annual Meeting of ISMPP – Part 2
Missed the 14th Annual Meeting of ISMPP? Read the second part of our meeting report to get up to speed!
Can the lay public enhance peer review?
Researchers argue that lay review will increase the relevance of medical publications: a new study aims to evaluate its impact.
Do preprints have a place in today’s reference lists?
Can preprints be cited in the same way as papers published in a peer reviewed journal, or do we need to define new standards?
Focusing on big data: is seeing believing?
Are we too willing to accept big data as fact? Find out how scientific publishing can learn from common mistakes arising from bad data practice.
PubMed Commons now discontinued
As PubMed Commons closes due to lack of use, what does this tell us about engagement with medical publications and post-publication peer review?
International Women’s Day 2018: how will you Press for Progress?
Join other medical, science, and publications professionals worldwide to #PressforProgress on #IWD2018 and beyond.
Can the automatic posting of preprints increase the pace of medical research?
Public Library of Science (PLOS) recently announced that all articles submitted to PLOS journals will automatically be published as preprints on bioRxiv.
Meeting report: summary of day 2 of the 2018 Annual TIPPA Meeting
Missed TIPPA 2018? Read our meeting report to get up to speed!
Meeting report: summary of day 1 of the 2018 European ISMPP Meeting
Missed ISMPP EU 2018? Read our meeting report to get up to speed!
Is blinded peer review fair?
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?
The ‘networking effect’: how author networks can cause gender bias in peer review
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
New tool to identify fakes in the peer review process
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
Registered Reports: enhancing transparency and reproducibility in scientific publication
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
Is artificial intelligence the key to speedier peer review?
In an age of rapid sharing of online information, authors are becoming increasingly frustrated with the lengthy timeframes associated with scientific peer review. But what if artificial intelligence (AI) could … Continue Reading Is artificial intelligence the key to speedier peer review?