Gunther Eysenbach*, JMIR Publications Inc., Toronto, Canada Track: Business Presentation Topic: Collaborative biomedical research, academic / scholarly communication, publishing and peer review Presentation Type: Rapid-Fire Presentation Submission Type: Single Presentation Building: Joseph B. Martin Conference Center at Harvard Medical School Room: B-Bray Room Date: 2012-09-15 04:00 PM – 04:45 PM Last modified: 2012-09-16

If you are the presenter of this abstract (or if you cite this abstract in a talk or on a poster), please show the QR code in your slide or poster (QR code contains this URL).

JMIR Publications Inc. is a leading independent publisher of high-quality scholarly journals and conferences, with an emphasis on technology in health. Its flagship journal is JMIR (J Med Internet Res, www.jmir.org) a leading ehealth amd health services research journal (2011 Impact Factor: 4.4, ranked ) with over 50.000 users in its database. JMIR Publications is also the producer of the annual Medicine 2.0 conference (5.000 users).
For over 10 years, JMIR has been on the forefront of testing and applying Web 2.0 ideas, such as openess (open access, open peer-review) and apomediation in the scholarly communication context. JMIR has also developed novel social media based article level metrics such as the Twimpactâ„¢ Factor, which has been found to be able to predict future citations within 3 days of publication based on analysis of Twitter chatter. The next quantum leap in the development will be the launch of profile pages of JMIR authors on the Medicine 2.0 social networking site (medicine20.net), which will be combined and connected with Medicine 2.0 users to further facilitate the creation of a virtual community of ehealth/mhealth scholars and knowledge users. We anticipate that social networking features integrated into journal and conference websites will facilitate collaboration and networking, and ultimately aid in the knowledge translation process. Social networking features will also aid with the assignment of reviewers, and based on our experiences with open peer-review (self-assignment of reviewers) we discuss the question whether a fully automated community-based approach to peer-review is feasible and will have an impact on quality.