The Eighth International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication: A Call for Research | Medical Journals and Publishing | JAMA | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Sign In
May 26, 2015

The Eighth International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication: A Call for Research

Author Affiliations
  • 1Director, Peer Review Congress
  • 2Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco
  • 3Executive Managing Editor, JAMA and The JAMA Network, Chicago, Illinois
  • 4Editor in Chief, BMJ, London, England
  • 5Executive Editor, BMJ, London, England
JAMA. 2015;313(20):2031-2032. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.4665

Everyone has a stake in the quality of the biomedical literature. With that in mind, we announce our intention to hold the Eighth International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, September 10-12, 2017, in Chicago, Illinois. As with the previous Congresses, our aim will be to improve the quality and credibility of biomedical information and to help advance the efficiency, effectiveness, and equitability of scientific information dissemination throughout the world.

We announced in 1986 that we would sponsor and hold a conference to present the results of research into the process of editorial selection and improvement of scientific manuscripts, constituting peer review.1 Each of these Congresses, held every 4 years since 1989 and organized by JAMA and the BMJ, have been devoted to 3 days of presentations of original research into editorial processes. A successful feature of the Congresses is our insistence on giving members of the audience ample time to debate the research presented.

We soon realized that the actual process whereby editors sent manuscripts to reviewers before they reached their decision was only one issue affecting the quality of published papers. The research presented at the Congresses, which had started as studies of the mechanics of peer review, gradually began to concentrate on the product of the process. Beginning with the first Congress, biases of every sort were documented,2-8 and proposals to prevent the biases were made and tested.9-11 The Congresses have featured research describing poor practices on the parts of authors, reviewers, editors, and journals, as well as improvements in these practices and the quality of reporting and publication.12 And again, prescriptions for improvements were given and tested.

Surprises keep occurring. While the process whereby editors actually make their decisions remains almost as mysterious as at the start, the huge advances in the electronic world have made peer review less expensive, quicker, and more efficient and have brought forth important but competing advances and threats to the validity of scientific publication. Thus, we are interested in continuing the evaluation of the quality of reporting and publication and in further developments in quests for openness—open peer review, postpublication public review and comment, open and public access, data transparency, and transparency of contributions, conflicts, and biases—as well as in better ways to serve readers and users of biomedical publication. Electronic advances also have enabled phony, predatory, and hijacked journals, phony authors, fake reviewers, and articles published in journals trumpeting their rigorous but phony peer review, nonexistent editors, unaware editorial board members, and misleading performance metrics.13-16 All of these, and no doubt newer tricks, will require investigation and remedies tested, on which we hope to see new research presented and discussed at the next Peer Review Congress. Finally, we remain interested in research into the peer review of grants, peer review as practiced in other sciences, and in the testing of types of peer review, new and old.

The Peer Review Congresses have enjoyed collaboration with important groups, such as the EQUATOR (Enhancing Quality and Transparency of Health Research) Network.17 For 2017, such collaboration will continue and will include coordination with the research and education programs of METRICS (Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford).18 METRICS will be holding its first international meeting at Stanford on November 19-21, 2015, focused on improving research practices, and the second meeting will be coordinated with the Peer Review Congress in 2017. We also plan a formal lively debate on a hot topic that will inform, entertain, and engage the Congress participants. We welcome suggestions for hot topics.

We encourage you to start your research now. 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. As with previous Congresses, preference will be given to well-developed studies with generalizable results (eg, multijournal/multidisciplinary, 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 Section Ref ID

Topics of Interest for Research on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication

  • Biases on the part of researchers, authors, reviewers, editors, funders/sponsors, commentators, and consumers of biomedical publication

  • Publication biases

  • Efforts to manage or eliminate biased reporting

Editorial and Peer Review Decision Making and Responsibilities
  • Models of peer review and editorial decision making and workflows used by 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

  • Ethical review and approval of studies

  • 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 published information

  • Data sharing, transparency, reliability, and access

  • 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 and public access

  • Single-blind, double-blind, and open peer review

  • Prepublication posting and release of information

  • Embargoes

  • Postpublication review, communications, and influence

  • Effect of social media

  • 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 and performance metrics and usage statistics

  • Quality and influence of advertising and sponsored publication

  • Quality and effectiveness of content tagging, markup, linking, and structures

  • 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 biomedical information

  • New technologies that affect the quality, integrity, dissemination, and access of biomedical information

  • The impact of social media and new media on science critique and dissemination

The deadline for submission of abstracts describing new research is January 2017. Programs and abstracts of research presented at the previous 7 Congresses are available on the Peer Review Congress website.14 Additional information and future announcements will be available on the website as well.

Editorials represent the opinions of the authors and JAMA and not those of the American Medical Association.
Back to top
Article Information

Corresponding Authors: Drummond Rennie, MD ( and Annette Flanagin, RN, MA (

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 Seventh International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication is available at

Simultaneous Publication: This editorial is being simultaneously published in the BMJ.

Rennie  D.  Guarding the guardians: a conference on editorial peer review.  JAMA. 1986;256(17):2391-2392.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Dwan  K, Altman  DG, Clarke  M,  et al.  Evidence for the selective reporting of analyses and discrepancies in clinical trials: a systematic review of cohort studies of clinical trials.  PLoS Med. 2014;11(6):e1001666.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Emerson  GB, Warme  WJ, Wolf  FM, Heckman  JD, Brand  RA, Leopold  SS.  Testing for the presence of positive-outcome bias in peer review: a randomized controlled trial.  Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(21):1934-1939.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Vedula  SS, Bero  L, Scherer  RW, Dickersin  K.  Outcome reporting in industry-sponsored trials of gabapentin for off-label use.  N Engl J Med. 2009;361(20):1963-1971.Google ScholarCrossref
Olson  CM, Rennie  D, Cook  D,  et al.  Publication bias in editorial decision making.  JAMA. 2002;287(21):2825-2828.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Weber  EJ, Callaham  ML, Wears  RL, Barton  C, Young  G.  Unpublished research from a medical specialty meeting: why investigators fail to publish.  JAMA. 1998;280(3):257-259.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Garfunkel  JM, Ulshen  MH, Hamrick  HJ, Lawson  EE.  Effect of institutional prestige on reviewers’ recommendations and editorial decisions.  JAMA. 1994;272(2):137-138.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Chalmers  I.  Underreporting research is scientific misconduct.  JAMA. 1990;263(10):1405-1408.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Hopewell  S, Ravaud  P, Baron  G, Boutron  I.  Effect of editors’ implementation of CONSORT guidelines on the reporting of abstracts in high impact medical journals: interrupted time series analysis.  BMJ. 2012;344:e4178.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Moher  D, Weeks  L, Ocampo  M,  et al.  Describing reporting guidelines for health research: a systematic review.  J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(7):718-742.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Hopewell  S, Collins  GS, Boutron  I,  et al.  Impact of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals: retrospective before and after study.  BMJ. 2014;349:g4145.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
 International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication. Accessed April 10, 2014.
 Beall’s List. Scholarly Open Access website. Accessed April 10, 2015.
Bohannon  J.  Who’s afraid of peer review?  Science. 2013;342(6154):60-65.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Ferguson  C, Marcus  A, Oransky  I.  Publishing: the peer-review scam.  Nature. 2014;515(7528):480-482.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Butler  D.  Investigating journals: the dark side of publishing.  Nature. 2013;495(7442):433-435.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
 EQUATOR Network website. Accessed April 10, 2105.
 METRICS website. Accessed April 10, 2015.