Will machines replace peer reviewers? The role of artificial intelligence in scientific publishing
Machine learning could help tackle an increase in manuscript submissions and speed up peer review, but the ethical implications must be considered.
Key principles for better evidence communication
Find out how implementing key principles of evidence communication can help audiences make informed decisions on clinical research.
Are standards required for preprint publishing platforms?
A recent BMJ editorial discusses the benefits and risks of the use of preprints during the current coronavirus pandemic.
Are peer review decisions arbitrary?
Mathematical model highlights the arbitrariness of peer review and finds that more innovative papers are less likely to be selected for presentation.
Is preregistering scientific research becoming mainstream?
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?
The ICMJE announces a new author disclosure form: what has changed and why?
Find out more about the impact the new ICMJE disclosure form will have on authors publishing in medical journals.
Negative results can have a positive impact, but only if they are available!
The reproducibility crisis is linked to publication bias and a paucity of negative data. Find out how and why to get such data published.
Should researchers be able to suggest peer reviewers?
Many journals ask submitting authors to suggest recommended peer reviewers, potentially risking bias and misconduct. Do the benefits outweigh these risks?
Can you trust an article’s abstract?
Abstract ”˜spin’ can distort a study’s findings and lead to inappropriate conclusions being drawn. But just how prevalent is this problem?
How to overcome the issue of poorly reported clinical trial outcomes
A number of initiatives developed to prevent researchers from only reporting the most impressive outcomes of clinical trials are explored in an opinion piece from The BMJ.