Author Affiliations: Dr Rennie (email@example.com) is Deputy Editor and Ms Flanagin is Managing Deputy Editor, JAMA, Chicago, Illinois; Dr Godlee is Editor in Chief and Dr Groves is Deputy Editor, BMJ, London, England.
The primary aims of biomedical peer review are to select and improve research and other academic work for funding and publication by identifying and reducing bias and increasing the validity, quality, credibility, and worth of scientific reports. This remains a difficult balance.1 Widespread advances in technology and communications have improved the speed, efficiency, and reach of scientific publication and have transformed the ways scientists, authors, reviewers, editors, clinicians, and the public interact with information and with each other. But these same advances also threaten the very nature of peer review and scientific publication. The need to critically evaluate the purpose, foundations, developments, and future prospects of this entire enterprise—from research proposal through and beyond publication—has never been stronger.
Since the first announcement in 1986, we have held 6 Peer Review Congresses at 4-year intervals with the aim of placing peer review and scientific publication under the same evaluation that science undergoes. The success of these congresses is clear from the stimulus they have given to new research into the processes whereby scientific work is funded, presented, and disseminated, peer reviewed, edited, published, enhanced, accessed, and used by others to change practice, influence funding and policy decisions, inspire discourse and debate, and stimulate new research.2- 9 This progress has been measured both in increase in the number of abstracts submitted to each congress (from 50 for the first to more than 200 each for the last 2) and in MEDLINE citations to peer review research (from 109 in 1994 to 382 in 2010).
We now announce the Seventh International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication to be held in Chicago, Illinois, September 8-10, 2013. This congress, organized by JAMA and the BMJ, will feature 3 days of presentations of original research. As with the previous congresses, the aims of the 2013 congress are to improve the quality and credibility of peer review and selection processes used by journals and funders and to help advance the quality, efficiency, effectiveness, and equity of biomedical publication and the dissemination of scientific information throughout the world. As before, we urge scientists, editors, publishers, funders, readers, and all who are interested in the processes by which science is funded and published to get going on their research.
In addition to the topics traditionally addressed during the Peer Review Congresses, such as the effects of peer review and editorial processes on the quality of scientific reporting,10 abstracts summarizing original, high-quality research on any aspect of scientific peer review, publication, and information exchange are welcome. Suggested topics of interest include those listed in the Box. We also are eager to see new research on the technologic advances and innovations that continue to influence all aspects of biomedical publication and the dissemination of scientific information. The increasing sophistication of research into these issues means that preference will be given to well-developed studies with generalizable results (eg, multijournal, prospective, multiyear trials and controlled studies). Retrospective studies, systematic reviews, bibliometric and other data analyses, surveys, and other types of studies will also be considered. Abstracts that report new research and findings will be given priority.
Existence of every sort of bias and efforts to eliminate biased reporting
Editorial and peer review decision making and responsibilities
Mechanisms of peer review and editorial decision making usedby journals and funders
Evaluations of the quality, validity, and practicality of peer review and editorial decision making
Quality assurance for reviewers and editors
Editorial policies and responsibilities
Editorial freedom and integrity
Peer review of grant proposals
Research and publication ethics
Ethical concerns for researchers, authors, reviewers, editors, publishers, and funders
Authorship, contributorship, and responsibility for published material
Conflicts of interest
Research and publication misconduct
Effects of funding and sponsorship on research and publication
Influence of external stakeholders: funders, journal owners, advertisers/sponsors, policy makers, legal representatives, and the news media
Evaluations of and mechanisms for improving the quality of reporting
Effectiveness of guidelines and standards designed to improve the quality of scientific publication
Evaluations of the quality of print and online information
Quality and reliability of data presentation and scientific images
Quality and use of online supplemental content
Quality and effectiveness of new forms of scientific articles
Models for peer review and scientific publication
Open peer review
Data sharing and access
Prepublication posting and release of information
Postpublication review, communications, and influence
Changes in readership and usage of peer-reviewed published content
Presentation, enhancement, and quality of scientific information in multimedia and new media
Quality, use, and effects of publication metrics and usage statistics
Quality and influence of sponsored supplements and related media, gray literature, and other forms of publication
Quality and effectiveness of content tagging, markup, and structures
The future of scientific publication
Dissemination of scientific and scholarly information
Methods for improving the quality, efficiency, and equitable distribution of biomedical information
New technologies that affect the quality, integrity, dissemination, and access of biomedical information
The impact of social networking and new media on science critique and dissemination
Deadline for submission of abstracts is March 1, 2013. Additional announcements and instructions for preparing and submitting abstracts will be available soon on the Peer Review Congress
website at http://www.jama-peer.org.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures: All authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest and report that the Peer Review Congress receives unrestricted grants from various charitable organizations and not-for-profit and commercial publishers. A list of sponsors of the Sixth International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication is
available at http://www.ama-assn.org/public/peer/program_2009.pdf.
Simultaneous Publication: This editorial is being simultaneously published in the BMJ.
Editorials represent the opinions of the authors and JAMA and not those of the American Medical Association.
Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.
Download citation file:
Web of Science® Times Cited: 3
Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.
The Rational Clinical Examination: Evidence-Based Clinical Diagnosis
Medical Decision-Making Capacity
The Rational Clinical Examination: Evidence-Based Clinical Diagnosis
Make the Diagnosis: Medical Decision-Making Capacity
All results at
Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a link to reset your password.
Enter your username and email address. We'll send instructions on how to reset your password to the email address we have on record.
Athens and Shibboleth are access management services that provide single sign-on to protected resources. They replace the multiple user names and passwords necessary to access subscription-based content with a single user name and password that can be entered once per session. It operates independently of a user's location or IP address. If your institution uses Athens or Shibboleth authentication, please contact your site administrator to receive your user name and password.