As a result of the significant disruption that is being caused by the COVID-19 pandemic we are very aware that many researchers will have difficulty in meeting the timelines associated with our peer review process during normal times. Please do let us know if you need additional time. Our systems will continue to remind you of the original timelines but we intend to be highly flexible at this time.
COVID-19 and impact on peer review
How can we support reviewer diversity?
Peer Review Week 2021 takes place September 20-24, with this year’s featured theme — “Identity in Peer Review” — dedicated to exploring the multifaceted nature of identity, how personal and social identity affects peer review practices and experiences, and what’s needed to foster more diverse, equitable, and inclusive peer review processes.
To mark the occasion, Dr Mario Malički, Co-Editor-in-Chief of Research Integrity and Peer Review, shares his thoughts and questions regarding identity in peer review. Read the blog here.
Announcing the launch of In Review
Research Integrity and Peer Review, in partnership with Research Square, is now offering In Review. Authors choosing this free optional service will be able to:
- Share their work with fellow researchers to read, comment on, and cite even before publication
- Showcase their work to funders and others with a citable DOI while it is still under review
- Track their manuscript - including seeing when reviewers are invited, and when reports are received
Articles
-
-
Strengthening the incentives for responsible research practices in Australian health and medical research funding
-
Evaluating implementation of the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guidelines: the TRUST process for rating journal policies, procedures, and practices
-
Cross-sectional study of medical advertisements in a national general medical journal: evidence, cost, and safe use of advertised versus comparative drugs
The Correction to this article has been published in Research Integrity and Peer Review 2021 6:10
-
Explaining variance in perceived research misbehavior: results from a survey among academic researchers in Amsterdam
-
Sex and Gender Equity in Research: rationale for the SAGER guidelines and recommended use
The Erratum to this article has been published in Research Integrity and Peer Review 2016 1:8
-
Good Practice for Conference Abstracts and Presentations: GPCAP
-
SANRA—a scale for the quality assessment of narrative review articles
-
Percentage-based Author Contribution Index: a universal measure of author contribution to scientific articles
-
Uptake and outcome of manuscripts in Nature journals by review model and author characteristics
Aims and scope
Research Integrity and Peer Review is an international, open access, peer reviewed journal that encompasses all aspects of integrity in research publication, including peer review, study reporting, and research and publication ethics. Particular consideration is given to submissions that address current controversies and limitations in the field and offer potential solutions. We welcome research into peer review and editorial decision making, however reports of individual journal or publisher decisions or actions will not be considered.
Please click here for more information.
Indexing
We are pleased to announce that all articles published in Research Integrity and Peer Review are included in Web of Science, PubMed, PubMed Central and DOAJ.
Society affiliations
Research Integrity and Peer Review is endorsed by the following organizations:
The Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) Network works with all stakeholders, including researchers, medical journal editors, and funding bodies, to promote and support the complete and transparent reporting of all health research.
The International Society for Managing and Technical Editors (ISMTE) connects editorial office staff across all areas of academic and scholarly publishing, and work together to develop best practices, with a particular interest in publication ethics.
Editors-in-Chief
Joerg Meerpohl, Editor-in-Chief
Joerg Meerpohl is a board-qualified pediatrician and pediatric hematologist & oncologist. He has been working as a researcher at the German Cochrane Centre since 2007 and was appointed deputy director in 2011 and co-director in 2015. His main research interests include systematic review methodology, transparency in research and related dissemination bias as well as reporting quality in particular. Since 2015, Joerg has been a member of the Cochrane Steering Group.
For many years Joerg has also been an active member of the GRADE working group, and has run many GRADE workshops at national and international organizations. Joerg worked as a GRADE methodology advisor with several WHO panels, the European Stroke Organization and the Robert Koch Institute in Germany amongst others. In 2013 he founded the GRADE center in Freiburg, Germany and is a member of the GRADE guidance committee.
Mario Malički, Editor-in-Chief
Mario Malički has obtained his MD at the University of Zagreb School of Medicine, Croatia, MA in Literature and Medicine at King’s College, London, UK, and PhD in Medical Ethics at the University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia. He has been a member of Cochrane Croatia, and of the New Frontiers of Peer Review (PEERE) EU COST Action. His main research interest is meta-science, with the focus on peer review, research integrity, authorship and transparency in reporting. His other interest includes medical ethics, hope, statistics, speculative fiction, Frank Herbert’s opus and Leonard Cohen’s poetry.
His scholarly profile can be seen at ORCiD, and his review experience at Publons.
Follow
Annual Journal Metrics
-
Speed
83 days to first decision for reviewed manuscripts only
67 days to first decision for all manuscripts
160 days from submission to acceptance
29 days from acceptance to publication
Usage
172,953 Downloads
1,422 mentions