Public health emergencies demand synthesized evidence rapidly. During COVID-19, Ebola outbreaks, and other crises, researchers face pressure to produce guidance within the first week hours, for example, to prevent further spread of infections in the community. Meanwhile, traditional systematic reviews require 6 to 18 months to complete. This temporal mismatch creates an evidence vacuum that decision-makers often fill with preliminary findings or incomplete data.

At JMIR Publications, we believe that choosing the right journal is one of the most critical steps in a researcher’s journey. For over two decades, we have supported open-science frameworks that provide diverse, reliable pathways to measure a paper’s reach and community impact.

At JMIR Publications, we believe that the true value of scientific discovery lies in its ability to improve lives. Our commitment to Open Access (OA) isn’t just about making papers free to read; it’s about ensuring that your insights reach the people who have the power to implement change—the policymakers.

Since its inception in 1999, JMIR Publications has been more than just a publisher—it has been a laboratory for the future of scholarly communication. As one of the world's first open-access publishers, JMIR has consistently pushed the boundaries of how scientific knowledge is captured, shared, and preserved.

If you were in Charleston this past November, you know what I mean when I say the air was thick with purpose, and a little bit of worry. The Charleston Conference is always a place where librarians and publishers come together to discuss the tough questions facing our industry, and this year highlighted that scholarly communication is evolving against a backdrop of economic, technological, and policy-driven uncertainty.

The landscape of scholarly publishing has grown increasingly complex, and academic librarians managing collections face mounting pressure to navigate this complexity wisely. With library budgets stretched thin, multiple business models competing for resources, and the ever-present threat of predatory publishers exploiting the open access movement, the responsibility of vetting journals has never been more critical, or more challenging.

As we close out another banner year at JMIR Publications, we’re taking a moment to celebrate the incredible growth of our YouTube community. In 2025, our mission to make high-impact research accessible reached new heights through our video series:Decoding Digital Health: Author Stories.

As we close out another banner year at JMIR Publications, we’re taking a moment to celebrate the incredible growth of our YouTube community. In 2025, our mission to make high-impact research accessible reached new heights through our flagship playlist:Decoding Digital Health: Author Stories.

Clinical trials rely heavily on the Schedule of Activities (SoAs), the detailed roadmap that dictates what data must be collected and precisely when. Traditionally, this roadmap is presented as a static, tabular chart within the study protocol. However, real-world research is rarely static. Patients miss visits, unexpected events occur, and complex study designs (like in oncology) require multiple treatment cycles and conditional branching.

The foundation of modern, data-driven medicine rests on high-quality empirical evidence, primarily derived from Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs). However, sharing the individual patient data (IPD) from these trials is heavily restricted by regulatory frameworks. For example, the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) which aims to protect patient privacy. This "privacy paradox" can hinder innovation, preventing researchers from reusing valuable data to develop predictive models or external control arms.