OHDSI Home | Forums | Wiki | Github

Ninth International Congress on Peer Review and Scientific Publication - Call for Abstracts

The Ninth International Congress on Peer Review and Scientific Publication will be held Septebmer 8-10, 2022 and official call for abstracts is announced in JAMA and BMJ.

The aim of the Congress is to encourage research into the quality and credibility of peer review and scientific publication and to further the evidence base on which scientists can improve the conduct, reporting, and dissemination of scientific research. The congress also has a continued special interest in studies of bias and how biases can be identified and managed. The abstract submission site will be open December 1, 2021, and the deadline for abstract submission is January 31, 2022.

The Peer Review Congress is organized by us with support from JAMA and the JAMA Network, The BMJ , and the Meta-research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS) and is supported by associate directors and an advisory board of leaders in research and publication who represent a wide variety of scientific disciplines.

I think this congress can be a good venue to promote recent activities of the OHDSI.

The examples of topics of interest for the peer review congress are described below:

  • Efforts to manage or eliminate bias in research methods, conduct and reporting of research, and interpretation of evidence
  • Publication and reporting bias
  • Bias on the part of researchers, authors, reviewers, editors, funders, commentators, and consumers of scientific information
  • Interventions to address gender, race and ethnicity, geographic location, career stage, and discipline biases in peer review, publication, and research dissemination
  • Improving and measuring diversity and inclusion of authors, reviewers, editors, and editorial board members
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
  • Quality assurance for reviewers, editors, and funders
  • Editorial policies and responsibilities
  • Editorial freedom and integrity
  • Peer review of grant proposals
  • Peer review of content submitted and selected for presentation at meetings
  • Effects of and adaption to the COVID-19 pandemic on reporting quality, dissemination, quality control, equity, peer review, and editorial workflows among journals, publishers, funders, news media, and social media
Research and Publication Ethics
  • Ethical concerns for researchers, authors, reviewers, editors, publishers, and funders
  • Authorship, contributorship, accountability, and responsibility for published material
  • Conflicts of interest
  • Research and publication misconduct
  • 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, policy makers, libraries, legal representatives, news media, social media, fact checkers, technology companies, and other influencers
  • Tools and software to detect wrongdoing, such as duplication, fraudulent manuscripts and reviewers, and image manipulation
  • Corrections and retractions
Improving the Quality of Reporting
  • Effectiveness of guidelines and standards designed to improve the quality of scientific reporting and publication
  • Evaluations of the quality of published information
  • Data sharing, transparency, reliability, and access
  • Research reproducibility and replicability
  • Approaches for efficient and effective correction of errors and limiting the spread of retracted science
  • Innovations to improve appropriate use of methods and statistics
  • Assessment of artificial intelligence and other tools to improve the quality of research 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
Models for Peer Review and Scientific Publication
  • Single-blind, double-blind, collaborative, and open peer review
  • Open and public access
  • Embargoes
  • Preprints and prepublication posting and release of information
  • Reanalyses
  • Reproducibility checks
  • Prospective registration of research
  • Postpublication review, communications, and influence
  • Evaluations of reward systems for authors, reviewers, and editors
  • Approaches to improve diversity and inclusion in peer review and publication
  • Innovations to address reviewer fatigue
  • Use and effects of social media
  • Quality and effects of scientific information in multimedia and new media
  • Quality, use, and effects of publication and performance metrics and usage statistics
  • Assessment of 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 assisted artificial intelligence and software to improve peer review, decision-making, and dissemination of science
  • Effects of opportunistic, predatory, and pirate operators
  • Threats to scientific publication
  • The future of scientific publication
Dissemination of Scientific and Scholarly Information
  • Methods for improving the quality, efficiency, and equitable distribution of scientific information
  • Use of novel mechanisms, formats, and platforms to disseminate science
  • New technologies that affect the quality, integrity, evaluation, dissemination, and access of scientific information
  • Funding and reward systems as they relate to science and scientific publication
  • Use of bibliometrics and alternative metrics to evaluate the quality and equitable dissemination of published science
  • Comparisons of and lessons from various scientific disciplines
  • Mapping of scientific methods and reporting practices and of meta-research across disciplines
  • Effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on scientific information, misinformation, and disinformation
  • Reporting of science, publishing, dissemination, and access during emergency situations (pandemics, natural disasters, political turmoil)

Thank you @SCYou very much for raising this. I agree this looks like an important venue for the OHDSI community to share its work to increase standards. @yalbogami @conovermitch @aostropolets should consider our recent reproducibility exercise as a prime target for this. I also think ongoing worth throughout our community in reporting standards (for data quality and ETL provenance (@clairblacketer @ericaVoss @Rijnbeek ), for phenotype reporting (@Azza_Shoaibi @Gowtham_Rao @Christian_Reich ), for analysis diagnostics (@schuemie @msuchard @hripcsa @Daniel_Prieto ) make logical sense here. I think an ongoing evidence-generating machine, as we’re building with LEGEND, really defies the current status quo and would be useful to discuss in a forum like this, where a publication is static but may reference a dynamic evidence source. Lots of possibilities!

Yes, this does sound interesting. I will see if we can build bridges with the EQUATOR network folks too