Featuring a look at transparency policies in pharma, Wellcome’s new sharing guidelines and what it means for authors to be in control of peer review
What are pharma’s policies on transparency? via The BMJ
Research from Ben Goldacre and colleagues in the BMJ focusing on the transparency policies of pharma companies. Their findings? It’s a very mixed bag.
The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research (FASTR) Act is put to the House of Representatives via SPARC Open
A report on the return this week of the FASTR Act to the US House of Representatives. If the Act is passed, open access would become mandatory for all research articles resulting from federally funded research.
How F1000Research puts authors in control via F1000Research blog
A post by Editorial Director of F1000Research, Sabina Alam, discussing the significance of putting authors first in the F1000 publishing platform and explaining how the platform has been tailored with funders in mind.
Funders need to talk less and act more to achieve progress on open access via Science Business
A piece by the head of the Frontiers platform, Kamila Markram, arguing that, although the widening discussion on open access is good, funders must begin to match their actions to their words in order to make change happen.
A review of peer review via F1000Research
This paper surveys peer review’s past and present, looks to its future, and provides a thorough background for anyone interested in knowing more about preprints.
Wellcome Trust introduces new sharing guidelines via Wellcome Trust
The Wellcome Trust announced this week that it was expanding the sharing requirements placed on the research it funds, requiring grant proposals to contain a ‘broader outputs management plan’ to enable the sharing of as much relevant information from the research as possible, including materials, data and software. Find out all you need to know regarding these new guidelines above.
How to get the most out of peer review via Science
This article looks at what can be gained through innovative approaches to peer review and advocates for publishers to make the most of the value peer review provides by making it open. Peer review, the paper argues, should generally be trusted but should also be verifiable by readers.
