International Congress on Peer Review and Scientific Publication

International Congress on Peer Review and Scientific Publication
Name	International Congress on Peer Review and Scientific Publication
Established	1989
Frequency	Quadrennial (originally triennial)
Location	Chicago, Illinois, United States (original venue)
Discipline	Scholarly publishing; peer review

International Congress on Peer Review and Scientific Publication is a recurring conference addressing peer review and scientific communication that convenes researchers, editors, publishers, funders, and policy makers to study the processes that shape scientific literature. Founded in 1989 in Chicago, Illinois with participation from stakeholders such as the Journal of the American Medical Association, the congress has influenced debates involving National Institutes of Health, Wellcome Trust, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, and international publishers like Elsevier, Springer Nature, and Wiley. Attendees have included scholars from institutions such as Harvard University, Stanford University, Johns Hopkins University, University of Oxford, and University of Cambridge.

History

The congress originated in response to concerns raised in venues such as the New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet about reproducibility after high-profile cases involving authors at Duke University and controversies discussed in panels with representatives from National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and editors from BMJ Publishing Group. Early meetings featured investigators associated with Evidence-Based Medicine movements and participants from Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the Institute of Medicine. Over subsequent decades the congress reflected developments linked to initiatives by Open Access advocates at Public Library of Science, policy shifts at European Commission research programs, and methodological debates involving groups such as CONSORT and PRISMA.

Organization and Governance

Governance has involved editorial leaders from major journals including Journal of the American Medical Association, The BMJ, Annals of Internal Medicine, and representatives from professional societies such as the American Medical Association, American Psychological Association, and American Association for the Advancement of Science. Funding and organizational support have come from agencies and foundations including the National Institutes of Health, Wellcome Trust, Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, and publishers like Elsevier and Wiley-Blackwell. Steering committees have drawn on expertise from universities such as Yale University, Columbia University, University of California, San Francisco, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology as well as policy bodies like the World Health Organization and United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

Themes and Topics

Sessions have addressed methodological and ethical topics explored by scholars associated with Richard Horton-era editorial debates at The Lancet, reproducibility crises connected to work by John Ioannidis, and integrity issues similar to cases at Harvard Medical School and Stanford University. Recurring themes include fraud and misconduct discussed with reference to inquiries at Duke University Medical Center, statistical reliability linked to methods from Cochrane Collaboration and CONSORT guidelines, transparency exemplified by Open Data initiatives championed by PLOS founders, peer-review models debated alongside experiments at eLife and F1000Research, and metrics controversies involving Clarivate Analytics, Elsevier's Scopus, and the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. Other topics have included preprint culture from platforms like arXiv and bioRxiv, data sharing policies influenced by NIH and European Research Council, and diversity initiatives reflecting efforts by organisations such as Association of American Medical Colleges.

Notable Meetings and Outcomes

Notable congresses produced influential reports and papers cited alongside work from National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and policy statements from Wellcome Trust and NIH Office of Research Integrity. Meetings catalyzed studies that informed guidelines such as CONSORT, PRISMA, and discussions that preceded policy changes at publishers including Elsevier, Springer Nature, and Wiley. Outcomes included empirical studies on reviewer bias referencing research by scholars at Columbia University, proposals for registered reports promoted by editors at Royal Society Publishing and Nature Research, and pilot projects on open peer review implemented by platforms like F1000Research and eLife.

Impact on Scholarly Publishing

The congress influenced adoption of practices across journals such as The BMJ, New England Journal of Medicine, PLOS Medicine, and Nature, encouraging transparency measures like trial registration under systems associated with ClinicalTrials.gov, data deposition policies linked to Dryad and Figshare, and conflict-of-interest disclosures modeled after International Committee of Medical Journal Editors recommendations. Its proceedings informed policy debates at funding agencies including Wellcome Trust, European Commission, and National Institutes of Health, and contributed to discussions that shaped innovations at publishers such as Taylor & Francis and Oxford University Press.

Criticisms and Controversies

Critics have argued the congress at times reflected the interests of major publishers including Elsevier and Wiley and foundations like the Gates Foundation, raising questions similar to critiques leveled at Open Science initiatives and funding relationships discussed in reports from ProPublica and investigative pieces in The New York Times. Debates have arisen about representation of stakeholders from low- and middle-income countries such as delegates from India, Brazil, and South Africa versus dominant institutions like Harvard University and University of Oxford. Some observers noted tensions akin to controversies at COPE and disputes over metrics and commercial influence seen in controversies involving Clarivate Analytics and SciELO.

Category:Academic conferences Category:Peer review Category:Scholarly publishing