Volume 29, Issue 2 - The Data Economy
Rush to publication – What do we have to lose?
Author: Art Gertel
Abstract
Just as the research and development of new drugs requires careful, often painstaking, adherence to empirical processes, the peer-review process and, indeed, the manuscript preparation process, are likewise laborious and time-consuming. The benefits of these are obvious and important, given how critical peer review serves as a “gatekeeper” for the disclosure of new scientific and medical information. However, we must consider weighing the potential value of rapid publication against the potential harm of inadequate vetting (both internal and external) of the final product.
Visit the EMWA website
Search
Articles
Member Login
Links
Editoral Board
Editor-in-Chief
Co-Editors
Managing Editor
Victoria White
Deputy Managing Editor
Alicia Waltman
Associate Editors
Section Editors
Digital Communication
EMWA News
Gained in Translation
Getting Your Foot in the Door
Good Writing Practice
Alison McIntosh / Stephen Gilliver
In the Bookstores
Manuscript Writing
Medical Communications/Writing for Patients
Medical Devices
My First Medical Writing
News from the EMA
Out on Our Own
Pharmacovigilance
Regulatory Matters
Regulatory Public Disclosure
Teaching Medical Writing
The Crofter: Sustainable Communications
Jennifer Bell / Louisa Marcombes
Veterinary Writing
Editors Emeritus
Lay out Designer
Chris Monk