The suggestion that preprints could replace traditional journals has been debated. Dr Haseeb Irfanullah provides arguments against this view.
ISMPP launches new series of InformED podcasts.
Find out how media outlets reported on COVID-19 preprints in the early months of the pandemic.
Find out if preprints are up to scratch when it comes to transparent reporting and whether traditional peer review can raise the bar higher.
Missed the meeting? Read our report to get up to speed!
Medical research without adequate pre-publication review could damage public trust in medical science
Recommendations from 3 leading medical communication organisations aim to protect the integrity of published scientific and medical research.
Acceleration of research and implications for research transparency: our summary of the third Biomedical Transparency Summit series webinar
The third webinar in the Biomedical Transparency Summit Series considered the impact of COVID-19 on research transparency and data sharing.
A recent BMJ editorial discusses the benefits and risks of the use of preprints during the current coronavirus pandemic.
COVID-19 has had an unprecedented global impact. Now, a Digital Science report asks how the research landscape has adapted to these extreme circumstances.
Publishers show enthusiasm for preprints by allowing transfer from preprint servers to submission sites and by integrating preprint platforms into manuscript submission workflows.
Could medical publishing benefit from a more dynamic system, where open publications can be updated and engagement is sought across disciplines?
There are a number of publishing features to consider when selecting a journal. Find out how researchers are navigating the options to their best advantage.
Researchers propose that self-organising peer review for preprints could be the future of scholarly publishing.
Missed the 15th Annual Meeting of ISMPP? Read our meeting report to get up to speed!
Missed ISMPP EU 2019? Read our meeting report to get up to speed!
In an article published in The New York Times, Professor Aaron E. Carroll critiques the peer review system and provides a number of suggestions for improvements.