WANT A PROFILE LIKE THIS?
Create my FREE Plan Or learn about other options
Elizabeth Wager
PeerJ Author & Reviewer
1,010 Points

Contributions by role

Author 270
Preprint Author 70
Reviewer 70
Editor 600
Answers 2

Contributions by subject area

Ethical Issues
Science and Medical Education
Legal Issues
Science Policy
Human-Computer Interaction
Computational Science
Statistics
Evidence Based Medicine
Cell Biology
Molecular Biology
Oncology

By Q&A topic

Science-and-medical-education
Science-policy
Statistics

Elizabeth Wager

PeerJ Author & Reviewer

Summary

Elizabeth (Liz) Wager is a freelance consultant and trainer with a background in publishing and medical writing who has worked on 6 continents. She chaired the Committee on Publication Ethics (2009-2012) and has been a member of the Ethics Committees of the BMJ and the World Association of Medical Editors and on the Advisory Board of the UK Research Integrity Office. She is a co-author of various COPE guidelines, Good Publication Practice for Pharmaceutical Companies (GPP3), and wrote ‘Getting Research Published: An A to Z of Publication Strategy’ (3rd edition 2015).

Clinical Trials Ethical Issues Science & Medical Education

Editing Journals

Past or current institution affiliations

University of Split

Work details

Publications Consultant

Sideview
School of Medicine

Visiting Professor

University of Split, Croatia

Websites

  • PubMed Search
  • Google Scholar
  • ORCID

PeerJ Contributions

  • Articles 2
  • Preprints 2
  • Edited 5
  • Questions 1
July 16, 2019
UK universities compliance with the Concordat to Support Research Integrity: findings from cross-sectional time-series
Elizabeth Wager
https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.7292 PubMed 31341741
August 18, 2015
Too much of a good thing? An observational study of prolific authors
Elizabeth Wager, Sanjay Singhvi, Sabine Kleinert
https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1154 PubMed 26312173
March 30, 2019 - Version: 1
UK universities compliance with the Concordat to Support Research Integrity: findings from cross-sectional time-series
Elizabeth Wager
https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.27622v1
October 19, 2017 - Version: 1
Good Practice for Conference Abstracts and Presentations: GP-CAP
Cate Foster, Elizabeth Wager, Jackie Marchington, Mina Patel, Steve Banner, Nina C Kennard, Antonia Panayi, Rianne Stacey
https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.3356v1

Academic Editor on

May 10, 2016
A longitudinal study of independent scholar-published open access journals
Bo-Christer Björk, Cenyu Shen, Mikael Laakso
https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1990 PubMed 27190709
March 31, 2016
Auto-correlation of journal impact factor for consensus research reporting statements: a cohort study
Daniel R. Shanahan
https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1887 PubMed 27069817
October 27, 2015
Quotation accuracy in medical journal articles—a systematic review and meta-analysis
Hannah Jergas, Christopher Baethge
https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1364 PubMed 26528420
June 18, 2015
Exploring the attitudes of medical faculty members and students in Pakistan towards plagiarism: a cross sectional survey
Farooq Azam Rathore, Ahmed Waqas, Ahmad Marjan Zia, Martina Mavrinac, Fareeha Farooq
https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1031 PubMed 26157615
May 26, 2015
Have the “mega-journals” reached the limits to growth?
Bo-Christer Björk
https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.981 PubMed 26038735

1 Question

0
Your article about errors contains an error!
about Improving the peer-review process and editorial quality: key errors escaping the review and editorial process in top scientific journals