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.
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.
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.
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.