0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Editorial |

Seventh International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, September 2013—Call for Research FREE

Drummond Rennie, MD; Annette Flanagin, RN, MA; Fiona Godlee, MBBChir, MRCP; Trish Groves, MBBS, MRCPsych
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Dr Rennie (drummond.rennie@ucsf.edu) 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.


JAMA. 2012;307(7):726-727. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.150.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

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.29 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.

BOX. TOPICS OF INTEREST FOR THE SEVENTH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS ON PEER REVIEW AND BIOMEDICAL PUBLICATION

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

  • Confidentiality

  • 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

  • Online publication

  • Open access

  • 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.

Lock S. A Difficult Balance: Editorial Peer Review in Medicine. London, UK: Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust; 1985
Rennie D. Guarding the guardians: a conference on editorial peer review.  JAMA. 1986;256(17):2391-2392
PubMed   |  Link to Article
 Guarding the guardians: research on editorial peer review; selected proceedings from the First International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication. May 10-12, 1989, Chicago, Ill.  JAMA. 1990;263(10):1317-1441
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Rennie D, Flanagin A. The Second International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication.  JAMA. 1994;272(2):91
PubMed   |  Link to Article
 Third International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication.  JAMA. 1998;280(3, theme issue):203-306
 Fourth International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication.  JAMA. 2002;287(21, theme issue):2759-2871
Link to Article
Rennie D, Flanagin A, Smith R, Smith J. Fifth International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication: call for research.  JAMA. 2003;289(11):1438
Link to Article
Rennie D, Flanagin A, Godlee F, Smith J. Sixth International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, September 2009: call for research.  JAMA. 2007;298(20):2420-2421
Link to Article
 Seventh International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication. http://www.ama-assn.org/public/peer/peerhome.htm. Accessed January 25, 2012
Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, Davidoff F. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies.  Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(2):MR000016Link to Article
PubMed

Figures

Tables

References

Lock S. A Difficult Balance: Editorial Peer Review in Medicine. London, UK: Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust; 1985
Rennie D. Guarding the guardians: a conference on editorial peer review.  JAMA. 1986;256(17):2391-2392
PubMed   |  Link to Article
 Guarding the guardians: research on editorial peer review; selected proceedings from the First International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication. May 10-12, 1989, Chicago, Ill.  JAMA. 1990;263(10):1317-1441
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Rennie D, Flanagin A. The Second International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication.  JAMA. 1994;272(2):91
PubMed   |  Link to Article
 Third International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication.  JAMA. 1998;280(3, theme issue):203-306
 Fourth International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication.  JAMA. 2002;287(21, theme issue):2759-2871
Link to Article
Rennie D, Flanagin A, Smith R, Smith J. Fifth International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication: call for research.  JAMA. 2003;289(11):1438
Link to Article
Rennie D, Flanagin A, Godlee F, Smith J. Sixth International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, September 2009: call for research.  JAMA. 2007;298(20):2420-2421
Link to Article
 Seventh International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication. http://www.ama-assn.org/public/peer/peerhome.htm. Accessed January 25, 2012
Jefferson T, Rudin M, Brodney Folse S, Davidoff F. Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies.  Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(2):MR000016Link to Article
PubMed

Letters

CME
Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 3

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
JAMAevidence.com

Users' Guides to the Medical Literature
Chapter 22.2. Decision Making and the Patient

Users' Guides to the Medical Literature
The Role of Costs in Clinical Decision Making Remains Controversial