International Congress on
Peer Review and Scientific Publication

Aims and Interests

The Congress will provide a forum for the presentation and discussion of new research into the quality and credibility of peer review and scientific publication, to establish the evidence base on which scientists can improve the conduct, reporting, and dissemination of scientific research. Suitable abstracts will report studies into the processes used by researchers, authors, editors, peer reviewers, publishers, funders, universities, librarians, and other stakeholders to improve the conduct, reporting, quality, integrity, and dissemination of scientific research and scholarly commentary. Suitable topics include any aspect of editorial and funding peer review, scientific and scholarly publication, research and reporting practices, identification and management of biases, transparency, reproducibility, access, publication and dissemination metrics, identification and management of threats to the integrity of science, and advances in information exchange, covering all disciplines of science, including (but not limited to) biomedicine, health science, applied science, basic science, physical and chemical sciences, psychology, computer science, engineering, economics, social science, and humanities, will be considered.

This is a research meeting. Abstracts describing narrative reviews, personal experiences, recommendations, and opinion will not be considered.

Abstracts that report new research and findings, that build on previous knowledge and test or evaluate processes, policies, or interventions with generalizable results (eg, prospective multiyear trials and controlled studies from collaborations among researchers, journals, publishers, funders, and information disseminators) will be given priority. Observational studies, systematic reviews, modelling studies, bibliometric analyses, surveys, and other research designs are also eligible.

Authors must affirm that the work submitted is original (see Cover Letter below).

Criteria for Abstract Acceptance
Quality, Originality, Importance, Validity, Clarity, General Interest, and Reasonable Conclusions
Content and formatting requirements met (see below)

The Abstract submission site will open on December 1, 2024, and all Abstracts must be submitted by January 31, 2025.

Sponsored Scholar Opportunities

Limited opportunities for scholars with demonstrated need (primarily from low-income countries and with limited resources) to apply for funding assistance to attend the Congress will be available. For more information, contact us at jama-peer@jamanetwork.org.

Back to Top

Suggested Topics for Research

Bias

• Efforts to avoid, manage, or account for bias in research methods, design, conduct, analysis, and reporting and interpretation
• Publication and reporting bias
• Bias on the part of researchers, authors, reviewers, editors, funders, commentators, influencers, disseminators, and consumers of scientific information
• Interventions to address gender, race and ethnicity, geographic location, career stage, and discipline biases in peer review, publication, research dissemination, and impact
• Improving and measuring diversity, equity, and inclusion of authors, reviewers, editors, and editorial board members
• Motivational factors for bias related to rewards and incentives
• New forms of bias introduced by wider use of large language models and other forms of artificial intelligence (AI)

Editorial and Peer Review Decision Making

• Assessment and testing of models of peer review and editorial decision-making and workflows used by journals, publishers, funders, and research disseminators
• Evaluations of the quality, validity, and practicality of peer review and editorial decision-making
• Challenges, new biases, and opportunities with mega-journals
• Assessment of practices related to publication of special issues with guest editors
• Economic and systemic evaluations of peer review technology and workflows and the related publishing business sector
• Methods for ascertaining use of large language models and other forms of AI in authoring and peer review of scientific papers
• AI in peer review and editorial decision-making
• Quality assurance for reviewers, editors, and funders
• Editorial policies and responsibilities
• Editorial freedom and integrity
• Peer review of grant proposals
• Peer review of content for meetings
• Editorial handling of science journalism
• Role of journals as publishing venues vs peer review venues
• COVID-19 pandemic and postpandemic effects

Research and Publication Integrity and Ethics

• Ethical concerns for researchers, authors, reviewers, editors, publishers, and funders
• Authorship, contributorship, accountability, and responsibility for published material
• Conflicts of interest (financial and nonfinancial)
• Research and publication misconduct
• Editorial nepotism or favoritism
• Paper mills
• Citation cartels, citejacking, and other manipulation of citations
• Conflicts of interest among those who critique or criticize published research and researchers
• Ethical review and approval of studies
• Confidentiality considerations
• Rights of research participants in scientific publication
• Effects of funding and sponsorship on research and publication
• Influence of external stakeholders: funders, journal owners, advertisers/sponsors, libraries, legal representatives, news media, social media, fact-checkers, technology companies, and others
• Tools and software to detect wrongdoing, such as duplication, fraudulent manuscripts and reviewers, image manipulation, and submissions from paper mills
• Corrections and retractions
• Legal issues in peer review and correction of the literature
• Evaluations of censorship in science
• Intrusion of political and ideological agendas in scientific publishing
• Science and scientific publication under authoritarian regimes

Improving Research Design, Conduct, and Reporting

• Effectiveness of guidelines and standards designed to improve the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of scientific studies
• Evaluations of the methodological rigor of published information
• Data sharing, transparency, reliability, and access
• Research reanalysis, reproducibility, and replicability
• Approaches for efficient and effective correction of errors
• Curtailing citation and continued spread of retracted science
• Innovations in best, fit-for-purpose methods and statistics, and ways to improve their appropriate use
• Implementations of AI and related tools to improve research design, conduct, and reporting
• Innovations to improve data and scientific display
• Quality and reliability of data presentation and scientific images
• Standards for multimedia and new content models for dissemination of science
• Quality and effectiveness of new formats for scientific articles
• Fixed articles vs evolving versions and innovations to support updating of scientific articles and reviews

Models for Peer Review and Scientific Publication

• Single-anonymous, double-anonymous, collaborative, and open peer review
• Pre–study conduct peer review
• Open and public access
• Embargoes
• Preprints and prepublication posting and release of information
• Prospective registration of research
• Postpublication review, communications, and influence
• Engaging statistical and other technical expertise in peer review
• Evaluations of reward systems for authors, reviewers, and editors
• Approaches to improve diversity, equity, and inclusion in peer review and publication
• Innovations to address reviewer fatigue
• Scientific information in multimedia and new media
• Publication and performance metrics and usage statistics
• Financial and economic models of peer-reviewed publication
• Quality and influence of advertising and sponsored publication
• Quality and effectiveness of content tagging, markup, and linking
• Use of AI and software to improve peer review, decision-making, and dissemination of science
• Practices of opportunistic, predatory, and pirate operators
• Threats to scientific publication
• The future of scientific publication

Dissemination of Scientific and Scholarly Information

• New technologies and methods for improving the quality and efficiency of, and equitable access to, scientific information
• Novel mechanisms, formats, and platforms to disseminate science
• Funding and reward systems for science and scientific publication
• Use of bibliometrics and alternative metrics to evaluate the quality and equitable dissemination of published science
• Best practices for corrections and retracting fraudulent articles
• Comparisons of and lessons from various scientific disciplines
• Mapping of scientific methods and reporting practices and of meta-research across disciplines
• Use and effects of social media
• Misinformation and disinformation
• Reporting, publishing, disseminating, and accessing science in emergency situations (pandemics, natural disasters, political turmoil, wars)

Back to Top

Preparing and Submitting Abstracts

Please review the following guidance carefully as Abstracts that do not meet these requirements will not be considered.

Authorship

• One author must be identified as the primary corresponding author and agree to represent all coauthors in communications with the Congress organizers. Up to 2 co-corresponding authors can be indicated on the title page (see below).
• Provide a complete name, mailing address, telephone number, and e-mail address for the corresponding author.
• Submit complete names, affiliations, and e-mail addresses for all coauthors.
• If a consortium or group author name is used, all individual author members of the group need to be identified in the title page and the abstract submission system.

Abstract: The abstract must be of sufficient quality and completeness to permit review.

• File format: Word (.doc or .docx)
• Word limit 400
• No more than 1 small table or figure
• Include a descriptive title that is not declarative, a question, and does not reveal study results or conclusions
• Up to 3 references of prior related research may be listed below the abstract
• The names of authors and other identifying information should not appear on the Abstract page to facilitate blinded review

Cover Letter: The cover letter should briefly describe the importance and relevance of the abstract and should indicate that the work described in the abstract is original and has not been previously published. Please indicate if the work has been posted as a preprint, and if so provide a link to the preprint. Please also indicate if the work has been submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. 

Title Page: The title page will not be shown to reviewers. The title page should include the following:

• Abstract title: Titles should be concise but informative. Avoid questions and declarative statements that provide the study findings
• Complete names and affiliations of all authors
• Indicate a single primary corresponding author with no more than 2 co-corresponding authors
• Each author’s potential conflicts of interest and financial disclosures (including declarations of no conflicts of interest)
• Disclosures of funding support and explanation of the role of the funder/sponsor in the work
• Any relevant acknowledgment information

 

Study Types

Abstracts should specify study design, such as randomized controlled trials; cohort, case-control, cross-sectional, comparative-effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and quality improvement studies; meta-analyses; systematic reviews without meta-analysis; modeling studies; surveys; and qualitative analysis. Authors will be asked to identify their study type in the abstract submission system. Studies should follow the basic reporting requirements of the EQUATOR Network. Case reports and nonresearch will not be considered.

Abstract Format and Content

Abstracts should be prepared in Word, limited to 400 words, and structured using the headings and sections for Objective, Design, Results, and Conclusions and should address the relevant items listed in each section below. The Objective and Conclusions sections should be very brief. The majority of the Abstract should be focused on Methods and Results. Abstracts that do not follow these recommendations will not be considered.

Objective:

• Concise statement of the study question or hypothesis
• Include recognition of prior related research

Design:

• Description of how the hypothesis was tested or study question addressed
• Study type (eg, cohort study, survey, randomized trial)
• Dates of study/analysis
• Sample or data source(s)
• Sample or data selection procedures
• Inclusion/exclusion criteria
• Intervention or exposure
• Main outcomes and measurements
• Methods of analyses
• Methods used to control for potential confounding/bias

Results:

• Description of what was found, with specific data including sample size
• Provide absolute numbers and percentages (do not provide percentages alone)
• Provide numerators and denominators and response/participation rates, as appropriate
• Present numerical results (eg, absolute numbers, proportions, rates, ratios, or differences) with appropriate indicators of uncertainty, such as 95% CIs
• For baseline data and descriptive studies, use means and standard deviations (SDs) for normally distributed data and medians and ranges or interquartile ranges (IQRs) for data that are not normally distributed
• Avoid reporting only P values, or basing conclusions exclusively on P values, which fail to convey important quantitative information
• When presenting P values, they should be exact and expressed to 2 digits to the right of the decimal point, or to 3 digits if <.01
• A single, small table or figure displaying the main results may be cited. This object should be placed after the abstract. See additional guidance below

Conclusions:

• Brief statement of conclusions, limiting generalization to the study sample or data source

References:

• Up to 3 references citing prior related research

Reference Style
Number references in the order they appear in the text; do not alphabetize. Identify references with superscript arabic numerals. List elements of references in this order: authors, article title and subtitle, journal title, publication year (or date if online first), volume, issue and page numbers or e-locator, and DOI. List all authors up to 6; if more than 6, list the first 3 followed by “et al.”

1. Ioannidis JPA, Berkwits M, Flanagin A, Bloom T. Peer Review and Scientific Publication at a Crossroads: Call for Research for the 10th International Congress on Peer Review and Scientific Publication. JAMA. 2023;330(13):1232–1235. doi:10.1001/jama.2023.17607
2. Page MJ, Altman DG, McKenzie JE, et al. Flaws in the application and interpretation of statistical analyses in systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions: a cross-sectional analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;95:7-18. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.11.022
3. Fanelli D, Moher D. Summary effect sizes in meta-analyses after removal of retracted studies from the pool of primary studies. Abstract presented at: Eighth International Congress on Peer Review and Scientific Publication; September 10, 2017; Chicago, IL.

Guidance for Tables and Figures

Only 1 small Table or Figure is permitted per abstract.

Table:

• Format: Word or Excel
• Place the table after the abstract
• Include a short descriptive title
• When presenting percentages, include numbers (numerator and denominator)
• Include statistical variability where applicable (eg, mean [SD], median [IQR], OR [95% CI])
• Use superscript letters (a, b, c) to mark footnotes and be sure each footnote in the table has a corresponding note (and vice versa)
• List abbreviations in the footnote section and explain any empty cells
• Tables should be single-spaced and in a 10- or 12-point font (do not shrink the point size to fit a table onto a page

Figure:

• Avoid complex composite or multipart figures
• Provide a short descriptive title and legend
• Do not use pie charts, 3-D graphs, and stacked bar charts as these are not appropriate for accurate statistical presentation of data and should be revised to another figure type or converted to a table
• For initial abstract review, the figure may be embedded at the end of the abstract file and must be of sufficient quality for editorial assessment and peer review
• Acceptable figure file formats for initial submission: .ai, .bmp, .docx, .emf, .eps, .jpg, .pdf, .ppt, .psd, .tif, .wmf, .xls
• If an abstract is requested to be revised or accepted, authors will be asked to provide figures that meet the following final requirements

Figure Requirements for Final Abstracts

• All symbols, indicators (including error bars), line styles, colors, and abbreviations should be defined in a legend.
• Each axis on a statistical graph must have a label and units of measure should be labeled.
• Error bars should be included in both directions, unless only 1-sided variability was calculated.
• Values for ratio data—odds ratios, relative risks, hazard ratios—should be plotted on a log scale. Values for ratio data should not be log transformed.
• For footnotes, use letters (a, b, c, etc) not symbols.
• Statistical Graphs: Provide a graph output directly from the software used to create it in an editable VECTOR file format, such as .wmf or .eps, or as an Excel graph, if created in Excel. If you provide .pdf files, be sure that these are in VECTOR file formal, not Raster file format. Raster (picture) files, such as .jpg or .tif, output directly or embedded in vector files, are not acceptable. All statistical graphs in accepted manuscripts are recreated in-house.
• Acceptable figure file formats for revision and acceptance: .ai, .emf, .eps, .pdf, .wmf, .xls

Important Dates

The Abstract submission site will open on December 1, 2024, and all Abstracts must be submitted by January 31, 2025.

Corresponding authors will be notified of decisions by the end of April and early May 2025.

Back to Top