The virtual 16th Annual Meeting of ISMPP will take place on June 16-18, 2020, with the meeting theme, The Evolving Role of the Scientific Communications Professional in an Open World.
Could medical publishing benefit from a more dynamic system, where open publications can be updated and engagement is sought across disciplines?
An increased reliance on virtual congresses and digital technologies during the pandemic may herald lasting changes, and opportunities, in medical communications.
A recent article in Nature reveals how dedicated data sharing infrastructure may be key to facilitating systematic research into peer review processes.
Publons data show many predatory journals enlist scholars to perform peer review – young researchers should be particularly wary.
Join ISMPP’s free webinar on COVID-19 and publication planning.
With a survey revealing that half of researchers have ghostwritten peer review reports, do peer review processes require reform?
Find out more about how medical publication professionals make decisions about authorship order.
With 2020 named the ‘International Year of the Nurse and the Midwife’, this year’s World Health Day focused on supporting these key healthcare professionals.
Find out more about recent discussions on environmental sustainability in medical communications.
The latest State of Open Data survey results show changing trends in researchers’ attitudes towards the use of open data.
Scientific publishing is adapting to make research on COVID-19 and coronaviruses freely and rapidly available to all. But does the crisis highlight an opportunity for more fundamental 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?