OR WAIT null SECS
Amid contentious debate about “fake news,” peer-review papers offer vital, objective insight.
The term “fake news” has been a hot-button issue recently. By definition, “fake” news is news that is false; this content may be disseminated as “true” to influence opinion or to deceive. In the current contentious political environment, some people identify any information that runs counter to their opinions as “fake news.”
Thanks to special-interest online publications and blogs, cable news channels, and even traditional news outlets, finding news that is “real” to you is only a click away. Your “real” news, most likely, is “fake” to those with opposing views. Facts, scientific consensus, and real-word evidence have become secondary to opinion and vested interests in the political arena. Fact-based information, however, is still the foundation for discussions and decisions in science-driven industries.
The editors of Pharmaceutical Technology routinely screen pitches from representatives of supplier companies about the importance and capabilities of new products or the quality of the services they offer. Experts at bio/pharma companies look to promote their capabilities or receive recognition for their achievements. We embrace our role as gatekeepers, sorting through the sometimes overtly promotional pitches to compile objective information and insight about industry trends and developments.
We also receive article contributions from industry experts whose primary objective is to share information to help advance the science and technology of pharmaceutical development. We are grateful for their contributions.
When the editors survey opinions in our annual readership studies, readers say they prefer articles that provide practical descriptions of technical topics, as well as peer-reviewed papers. These article formats are the foundation of our coverage. While the editors interview and work with experts for the practical, technical features, we turn to experts to provide the peer-reviewed contributions.
While other publications offer pay-for-publish models or require authors to have their papers reviewed prior to submission, manuscripts submitted to PharmTech for peer review are double-blind reviewed by the publication’s editorial advisory board using procedures standard for scholarly and technical journals. The board members conducting the peer review do not know who authored the paper, and the author does not know who is reviewing their submission. Thus, this peer-review process validates the credibility of the scientific or technical work described in the paper.
Four types of
are considered: standard data-driven, novel research papers; technical case studies/application notes; topical literature or patent reviews; and science-based opinion papers.
The review period typically takes four to six weeks. Accepted papers are scheduled for publication in PharmTech on a first-accepted basis and usually are published four to six months following acceptance.
All submissions must be original and cannot have been published previously in any format--including company literature or website postings. The paper cannot have been published previously in another language.
The contributed paper must be objective and cannot promote a company’s products or services. Authors are expected to provide suitable references to published third-party literature to support all statements in submitted manuscripts.
The PharmTech Author’s Guidelines webpage explains the submission process, provides links to the editorial guidelines for submissions, and contact information. The guidelines explain article rights, originality, and licensing; provide instructions for preparing an article for submission; list acceptable file types for figures, tables, and images; and include a style guide for references.
To access this information, visit www.PharmTech.com and click the Author’s Guidelines link on the navigation menu. Or, you can contact me directly at email@example.com.
Volume 41, Number 8
When referring to this article, please cite it as R. Peters, “Just the Pharma Facts, Please," Pharmaceutical Technology 41 (8) 2017.