
[VIDEO] EASE Peer Review Week discussion panel
Catch up on a range of topics related to peer review by watching this panel discussion webinar hosted by EASE.
A central online news resource for professionals involved in the development of medical publications and involved in publication planning and medical writing.
Catch up on a range of topics related to peer review by watching this panel discussion webinar hosted by EASE.
Find out how to review a research manuscript using the Open Reviewer Toolkit.
Find out how research published in Registered Reports compares to that in standard articles – is it really higher quality?
Find out how artificial intelligence tools are influencing the future of scientific communication.
While most journal editors support patients as co-authors on scientific articles, systemic barriers still exist for patients to participate meaningfully in publication development.
The suggestion that preprints could replace traditional journals has been debated. Dr Haseeb Irfanullah provides arguments against this view.
Research from higher-status institutions and countries is postulated to receive more favourable peer review. A recent article suggests this may not be the case.
Read Brian Southwell’s perspective on what can be done to prevent misinformation and build public trust in science.
Join the debate: learn about the potential benefits and risks of paying peer reviewers.
The gender gap in publications is well documented, but does peer review contribute to this bias? A recent study investigated.
Read Lucy Turner’s perspective on the impact of COVID-19 on medical publications and congresses.
Missed the meeting? Read our report to get up to speed!
Missed the meeting? Read our report to get up to speed!
Machine learning could help tackle an increase in manuscript submissions and speed up peer review, but the ethical implications must be considered.
Read Suzanne Farley’s perspectives on the steps one publisher is taking to address the growing problem of research misconduct.
A recent survey assessed the prevalence of editors altering peer review reports. Read about the results here.