Ensuring public access to information obtained through clinical research studies has been a recent focus of numerous government agencies, advocacy groups, and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Thanks to these efforts, as well as the work of the AllTrials Campaign, the critical importance of not just performing good science, but also sharing the resulting data has become widely recognized. New research, published today in Trials, suggests that positive trials are cited approximately three times as often as neutral trials and nearly 10 times as often as negative trials.
In this podcast, we talk to Professor Ian Cree, section editor for BMC Cancer, about open peer review and recognition for those participating in it.
Many reviewers feel that some form of public acknowledgment is more valuable than monetary payment when it comes to their services. In this podcast, Elizabeth Moylan discusses how publishers can recognize and reward the work that peer reviewers do.
Few resources are available to support less experienced peer reviewers of literature reviews. A recently published commentary in Research Integrity and Peer Review will help to fill this gap.
For Peer Review Week, we have put together this infographic with a selection of statistics about peer review at BioMed Central. Join the Peer Review Week conversation on Twitter by using the hashtag #PeerRevWk16.
In this post, Springer Nature Chief Publishing Officer Steven Inchcoombe introduces Peer Review Week 2016, which has the theme ‘Recognition for Review’.
Not had a chance to read all our posts from August? Here’s a roundup of what you’ve missed…
Sheevendra Sharma discusses here how scientific publications are often measured solely by their end result, missing the important contributions that come before this and introduces Profeza, a platform they co-founded with the intention of changing this dynamic.