On 30 August 2016, the US patent office granted a patent entitled “Online peer review system and method” (US Patent No. 9,430,468) to the publishing company, Elsevier. In the patent, … Continue Reading Elsevier granted patent for online peer-review system
In a recent review from the New England Journal of Medicine, Stuart Pocock and Gregg Stone take a close look at the evaluation of “positive” clinical trials, providing readers with … Continue Reading Interpreting clinical trial results: is a positive primary outcome good enough?
Watch a snapshot of the findings from one of the largest research studies into peer review in recent years, examining authors, reviewers’ and journal editors’ opinions on the system at … Continue Reading [VIDEO] Peer review: a global view
Due to the human element, peer review, a critical component of the publication process, can be biased and is often inefficient. Drummond Rennie, a former president of the World Association … Continue Reading Can more be done to improve the peer review process?
Peer review is a fundamental yet often criticised part of the publication process. Peerage of Science is an innovative platform that has been designed to overcome some of the recognised … Continue Reading Peerage of Science: a new approach to peer review
A workshop organised by OpenAIRE, entitled ‘Open peer review: models, benefits and limitations’ was held in Germany earlier this month. Stephanie Harriman, Medical Editor at BioMed Central and co-Editor-in-chief of … Continue Reading Are we ready to accept open peer review?
Peer review is an integral component of quality assurance in the publication of scientific research, but what’s in it for the reviewer? An increasing number of junior researchers are finding … Continue Reading Peer review: what’s in it for the reviewer?
The standard of peer review has recently come under scrutiny after several investigations discovered suboptimal procedures and in some cases fraudulent behaviour. In an article in PLoS ONE, Jelte Wicherts … Continue Reading A tool to measure the transparency and quality of peer review
Author: Jo Chapman, PhD (Aspire Scientific Ltd) Over two days last week, around 250 delegates and exhibitors braved sub-zero temperatures to attend the European meeting of the International Society for … Continue Reading Meeting report: Summary of Day 2 of the 2016 European ISMPP Meeting
Want to know what the highlights were from the 2016 ISMPP European Meeting? See the #ISMPP tweet stream here
The 2016 European meeting of the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) has just finished. Hopefully, the tweet stream below will be helpful in providing highlights of what was presented at … Continue Reading Want to know what the highlights were from the 2016 ISMPP European Meeting? See the #ISMPP tweet stream here
Peer review of research articles is an essential component of the publication process but it places a considerable burden on the senior scientists called upon to perform the task. The … Continue Reading Advice and tips for those undertaking peer review
An article published in BMC Medicine this week provides insights into how peer reviewers should evaluate statistics in publications. The article aims to cover the following questions: Is there sufficient … Continue Reading How to spot a statistical problem: advice for a non-statistical reviewer
In an essay published in the past few weeks in PLOS Medicine, the authors make four proposals for improving medical publications: Introducing publications officers for universities and research institutions Core … Continue Reading Four proposals to help improve the medical research literature
In case you missed it, last week was designated as Peer Review Week 2015. Some good summaries and highlights of what happened during the week from various publishers/organisations can be … Continue Reading Summary of Peer Review Week 2015 (#peerrevwk15)
A blog post published in the past few days discusses the pitfalls associated with post-publication peer review. The author states: “One function of pre-publication review is redistribution of attention: it … Continue Reading Post-publication review is still only for the scientific 1%
A recent article in the journal Transplantation discusses the pros and cons associated with both prepublication and postpublication peer review. The author of the article concludes: “…prepublication peer review is … Continue Reading “Prepublication peer review is an imperfect process, but traditional journals have no alternative”