Problems with Traditional Science Publishing and Finding a Wider Niche for Post-Publication Peer Review

Accountability in Research

Volumn 22, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 22-40

  Teixeira da Silva, Jaime A ^a   Dobránszki, Judit ^b  

^a Miki cho Post Office   (Japan)

^b UNIVERSITY OF DEBRECEN   (Hungary)

Author keywords

correcting the literature; ethics; peer review; quality control; responsibility; transparency

Indexed keywords

FRAUD; HUMAN; PEER REVIEW; PUBLISHING; QUALITY CONTROL; SCIENCE; STANDARDS; STATISTICAL BIAS;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); FRAUD; HUMANS; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PUBLISHING; QUALITY CONTROL; SCIENCE;

EID: 84914153535     PISSN: 08989621     EISSN: 15455815     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2014.899909     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Bakker, M., van Dijk, A., and Wicherts, J. M. (2012). The rules of game called psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7:543–554.
2. Balhara, Y. P. S. (2012). Post-publication review: Will it hold its ground? Lung India, 29:94
3. Bilbrey, E., O’Dell, N., and Creamer, J. (2014). A novel rubric for rating the quality of retraction notices. Publications, 2:14–26.
4. Bohannon, J. (2013). Who’s afraid of peer review? Science, 342:60–65.
5. Chambers, C. D. (2013). Registered Reports: A new publishing initiative at Cortex. Cortex, 49:609–610.
6. Chase, J. M. (2013). The shadow of bias. PLoS Biology, 11:e1001608.
7. Editorial. (2005). Revolutionizing peer review? Nature Neuroscience, 8:397.
8. Eyre-Walker, A. and Stoletski, N. (2013). The assessment of science: The relative merits of post-publication review, the impact factor, and the number of citations. PLoS Biology, 11:e1001675.
9. Fanelli, D. (2010). “Positive” results increase down the hierarchy of the sciences. PLOS One, 5:e10068.
10. Fiedler, K., Kutzner, F., and Krueger, J. I. (2012). The long way from α-error control to validity proper: Problems with a short-sighted false-positive debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7:661–669.
11. Florian, R. V. (2012). Aggregating post-publication peer reviews and ratings. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 6; article 31:1–8.
12. Ghosh, S. S., Klein, A., Avants, B., and Jarrod Millman, K. (2012). Learning form open source software projects to improve scientific review. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 6; article 18:1–11.
13. Groves, T. (2010). Is open peer review the fairest system? Yes. British Medical Journal, 341:c6424.
14. Hartshorne, J.K., and Schachtner, A. (2012). Tracking replicability as a method of post-publication open evaluation. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 6; article 8:1–14.
15. Ho, R.C.-M., Mak, K.-K., Tao, R., Lu, Y.-X., Day, J.-R., and Pan, F. (2013). Views on the peer review system of biomedical journals: An online survey of academics from high-ranking universities. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 13; article 74: 1–15.
16. Hunter, J. (2012). Post-publication peer review: Opening up scientific conversation. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 6; article 63:1–2.
17. Ioannidis, J. P. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLOS Medicine, 2:e124.
18. Jefferson, T., Rudin, M., Brodney Folse, S., and Davidoff, F. (2007). Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2:MR000016.
19. John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., and Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23:524–532.
20. Kapoor, S., Sikka, P., and Saxena, K. K. (2013). Publication of research article: An art or science? Annals of Medical Health Sciences Research, 3:96–98.
21. Khan, K. (2010). Is open peer review the fairest system? No. BMJ, 341:c6425.
22. Kravitz, D. J. and Baker, C. I. (2011). Toward a new model of scientific publishing: Discussion and a proposal. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 5; article 55:1–12.
23. Kriegeskorte, N. (2012). Open evaluation: a vision for entirely transparent post-publication peer review and rating for science. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 6, article 79:1–18.
24. Le Borgne, Y. A. and Campo, A. (2011). Open Review in computer science. Elsevier grand challenge on executable papers. Procedia Computer Science, 4:778–780.
25. Lee, C. (2012). Open peer reviews by a selected-papers network. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 6; article 1:1–15.
26. Masicampo, E. J. and Lalande, D. R. (2012). A peculiar prevalence of p values just below.05. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65:2271–2279.
27. McCarty, L. S., Borgert, C. J., and Mihaich, E. M. (2012). Information quality in regulatory decision making: Peer review versus good laboratory practice. Environmental Health Perspectives, 120:927–934.
28. Mesirov, J. (2010). Accessible reproducible research. Science, 327:415.
29. Nielsen, M. (2009). Doing science in the open. Physics World, 22:30–35.
30. Norman, I. and Griffiths, P. (2008). Duplicate publication and “salami slicing”: Ethical issues and practical solutions. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 45:1257–1260.
31. Nosek, B. A., Spies, J. R., and Motyl, M. (2012). Scientific Utopia II: Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7:615–631.
32. Pashler, H. and Wagenmakers, E. J. (2012). Editors’ Introduction to the special section on replicability in psychological science: A crisis of confidence? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7:528–530.
33. Pöschl, U. (2012). Multi-stage open peer review: scientific evaluation integrating the strengths of traditional peer review with the virtues of transparency and self-regulation. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 6, article 33:1–16.
34. Rennie, D., Flanagin, A., Smith, R., and Smith, J. (2003). Fifth international congress on peer review and biomedical publication: Call for research. Journal of American Medical Association, 289:1438.
35. Retraction Watch. (2012). South Korean plant compound researcher faked email addresses so he could review his own studies. Available at http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2012/08/24/korean-plant-compound-researcher-faked-email-addresses-so-he-could-review-his-own-studies/. Last accessed June 25, 2014.
36. Schreider, J., Barrow, C., Birchfield, N., Dearfield, K., Devlin, D., Henry, S., Kramer, M., Schapelle, S., Solomon, K., Weed, D. L., and Embry, M. R. (2010). Enhancing the credibility of decisions based on scientific conclusions: transparency is imperative. Toxicology Science, 116:5–7.
37. Schroter, S., Tite, L., Hutchings, A., and Black, N. (2006). Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors. Journal of American Medical Association, 295:314–317.
38. Stodden, V. (2009). The legal framework for reproducible scientific research: Licensing and copyright. Computing in Science and Engineering, 11:35–40.
39. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2011a). Who owns science, owns society. Maejo International Journal of Science and Technology, 5:S1–S10.
40. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2011b). The ethics of collaborative authorship. EMBO Reports, 12:889–893.
41. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2013a). Responsibilities and rights of authors, peer reviewers, editors and publishers: A status quo inquiry and assessment. The Asian and Australasian Journal of Plant Science and Biotechnology, 7:6–15.
42. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2013b). The need for post-publication peer review in plant science publishing. Frontiers in Plant Science, 4:Article 485.
43. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2013c). The Global Science Factor v. 1.1: A new system for measuring and quantifying quality in science. The Asian and Australasian Journal of Plant Science and Biotechnology, 7:92–101.
44. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. and Dobránszki, J. (2013). How not to publish an Open Access journal: A case study. The Asian and Australasian Journal of Plant Science and Biotechnology, 7:102–110.
45. Teixeira da Silva, J. A., Dobránszki, J., Van, P. T., and Payne, W. A. (2013). Corresponding authors: Rules, responsibilities and risks. The Asian and Australasian Journal of Plant Science and Biotechnology, 7:16–20.
46. Thornton, A. and Lee, P. (2000). Publication bias in meta-analysis: Its causes and consequences. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 53:207–216.
47. Tolo, V. T. (2014). Peer review has no peer. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 96:1.
48. Tressoldi, P. E. (2012). Replication unreliability in psychology: Elusive phenomena or “elusive” statistical power? Frontiers in Psychology, 3:218.
49. Vandewalle, P., Kovacevic, J., and Vetterli, M. (2009). Reproducible research in signal processing. Signal Processing Magazine IEEE, 26:37–47.
50. Wagenmakers, E. J. (2007). A practical solution to the pervasive problems of p values. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14:779–804.
51. Youssef, M. A. M. (2012). Peer review of manuscripts submitted to medical journals. Middle East Fertility Society Journal, 17:139–143.