I’ll be travelling to Chicago this weekend with 500 editors, publishers, researchers, funders, informatics people, information engineers and innovators, writers, journalists, policymakers, ethicists, professional communicators, and more (says the conference website). We’re all heading to the seventh International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication. Check #PRC7 and @peerrevcongress on Twitter.
Here are my 3 top picks from the preliminary program.
John Ioannidis opens the party, and is my first choice. I can’t imagine there’ll be anyone who isn’t anticipating hearing from the man consistently in the top 10 Mendeley papers with his famous analysis ‘Why most published research findings are false’.
At #PRC7 Ioannidis is treating us to a 30-minute discussion titled ‘Replication and Reproducible Research: Utopia or Reality?’
My guess is Ioannidis will include in his tour of utopia-slash-reality a discussion of the experimental Science Exchange Reproducibility Initiative. How the Reproducibility Initiative will work is probed in this Nature Medicine editorial ‘Repeat after me’, to which Ioannidis and colleagues respond in their letter ‘Reproducibility concerns’ (this link goes to the article in ReadCube). Ioannidis sits on the Reproducibility Initiative scientific advisory board. We blogged on reproducibility and data validation last month.
Ana Marušic also makes my top 3. Marušic and colleagues’ research at #PRC7 will shine new light into the complex collaborations between people who work within the pharmaceutical industry and clinical investigators working in universities and health care systems. Their focus is authorship, always a hot potato at Wiley and COPE (the COPE case archive is full of interesting stories).
The title of this presentation is ‘Authorship Decisions for Challenging Real-World Clinical Trial Publication Scenarios: Survey Findings From Clinical Investigators, Journal Editors, Publication Planners, and Medical Writers’.
For my third choice, I’ll zoom-in on the ‘Data Sharing and Availability’ session, chaired by Trish Groves. Research data is the next wave of change for publishers to surf (not to imply that we’ve quite finished surfing the other waves yet). The willingness of researchers to share their data intrigues me. So my third and final pick is from Christine Laine and colleagues. Their presentation is titled ‘Biomedical Researchers’ Willingness to Share Information to Enable Others to Reproduce Their Results’.
To end this Wiley Exchanges post with something original, I ran a surname crunch on the #PRC7 program and generated some data, which – in deference to Laine and colleagues’ work and to demonstrate my own willingness to share – you can have if you want. Email me. The results are in the table below. ‘Hats-off’ to the most prolific contributors to the #PRC7 program.
If you’ll be in Chicago then please come and visit me at our poster ‘Ethics in Practice: Improvements in Ethical Policies and Practices in Wiley Health Science Journals Following a 2-Stage Audit Cycle’ (Graf, Meadows, Stevens, Wager). We used the COPE audit tool and two rounds of audit, feedback, and advice to initiate and measure change. Our results will be on show for the first time in a poster at #PRC7. Please come and have a chat. @chrisgrafpub, email@example.com