The Eighth International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication
Authors: Drummond Rennie, Annette Flanagin, Fiona Godlee, Theodora Bloom
Journal: JAMA (2015)

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 startedasstudiesof themechanicsofpeer review,graduallybegantoconcentrateontheproductof theprocess.Beginningwith the firstCongress,biasesofeverysortweredocumented,2-8 and proposals to prevent the biases were made and tested.9-11 The Congresseshave featuredresearchdescribingpoorpracticeson theparts of authors, reviewers, editors, and journals, aswell as improvements inthesepracticesandthequalityofreportingand publication.12Andagain,prescriptions for improvementswere given and tested. Surprises keepoccurring.While the processwhereby editors actuallymake their decisions remains almost asmysterious as at the start, the huge advances in the electronic world havemade peer review less expensive, quicker, andmore efficient and have brought forth important but competing advancesandthreats to thevalidityofscientificpublication.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,unawareeditorialboardmembers, andmisleadingperformancemetrics.13-16 All of these, andnodoubt newer tricks, will require investigation and remedies tested, on which we hope to see new research presented anddiscussed 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. The deadline for submission of abstracts describing new research is January 2017. Programs and abstracts of research presentedat theprevious7CongressesareavailableonthePeer Review Congress website.14 Additional information and future announcements will be available on the website as well. Opinion