ASAPbio summarise the newly developed FAST principles, a set of best practices to foster engagement in public preprint review.
Read about the pros and cons of disclosing reviewer identities as part of the open review process.
Publishers show enthusiasm for preprints by allowing transfer from preprint servers to submission sites and by integrating preprint platforms into manuscript submission workflows.
Systematic reviews are generally considered gold standard evidence in healthcare, but a founding member of Cochrane believes steps can be taken to increase transparency and reduce bias in their protocols.
The tasks and responsibilities of peer reviewers are examined as a step towards reaching a consensus on their role in biomedical publishing
As demand for transparency increases, many journals are adopting open peer review: learn more about best-practice guidelines for implementing such systems.
As an increasing number of journals pilot transparent peer review, data indicate that open peer review does not compromise the process – at least when reviewers can stay anonymous.
Missed ISMPP EU 2019? Read our meeting report to get up to speed!
Journals and funders pledge to publish peer review reports in a move to increase transparency of the publication process.
eLife is trialling a novel form of open peer review that gives authors more control over their response to reviewers.