Fortifying the Corrective Nature of Post-publication Peer Review: Identifying Weaknesses, Use of Journal Clubs, and Rewarding Conscientious Behavior

Science and Engineering Ethics

Volumn 23, Issue 4, 2017, Pages 1213-1226

  Teixeira da Silva, Jaime A ^a   Al Khatib, Aceil ^b   Dobránszki, Judit ^c  

^a Miki cho Post Office   (Japan)

^b JORDAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Jordan)

^c UNIVERSITY OF DEBRECEN   (Hungary)

Author keywords

Accountability; Anonymity; Errors in the literature; PPPR; Publons; PubMed Commons; PubPeer; Responsibility; Status quo

Indexed keywords

ETHICS; PEER REVIEW; PUBLISHING; SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY; STANDARDS;

PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PUBLISHING; SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY;

EID: 85000956436     PISSN: 13533452     EISSN: 14715546     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11948-016-9854-2     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Alam, S. N., & Jawaid, M. (2009). Journal clubs: An important teaching tool for postgraduates. Journal of the College of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan, 19(2), 71–72.
2. Alguire, P. C. (1998). A review of journal clubs in postgraduate medical education. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 13(5), 347–353. doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.1998.00102.x.
3. Allison, D. B., Brown, A. W., George, B. J., & Kaiser, K. A. (2016). Reproducibility: A tragedy of errors. Nature, 530, 27–29. doi:10.1038/530027a.
4. Ana, J., Koehlmoos, T., Smith, R., & Yan, L. L. (2013). Research misconduct in low- and middle-income countries. PLoS Medicine, 10(3), e1001315. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001315.
5. Bastian, H. (2014). A stronger post-publication culture is needed for better science. PLoS Medicine, 11(12), e1001772. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001772.
6. Bourne, P. E., & Korngreen, A. (2006). Ten simple rules for reviewers. PLoS Computational Biology, 2(9), e110. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.0020110.
7. Brown, C. T. (2016). The likely challenges of (post) publication peer review. http://ivory.idyll.org/blog/2016-on-pppr.html. Last accessed November 21, 2016.
8. Buranyi, S. (2016). Anonymous internet vigilantes are taking peer review into their own hands. http://motherboard.vice.com/en_uk/read/anonymous-internet-vigilantes-are-taking-peer-review-into-their-own-hands-pubpeer. Last accessed November 21, 2016.
9. Cintas, P. (2016). Peer review: From recognition to improved practices. FEMS Microbiology Letters. doi:10.1093/femsle/fnw115.
10. Cofnas, N. (2016). Science is not always “self-correcting”. Fact-value conflation and the study of intelligence. Foundations of Science, 21, 477. doi:10.1007/s10699-015-9421-3.
11. Dobránszki, J., & Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2016). Editorial responsibilities: Both sides of the coin. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 6(3), 9–10. doi:10.5901/jesr.2016.v6n3p9.
12. Eisen, M., & Vosshall, L. B. (2016). Coupling pre-prints and post-publication peer review for fast, cheap, fair, and effective science publishing. http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1820. Last accessed November 21, 2016.
13. Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE, 4(5), e5738. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005738.
14. Ferguson, C., Marcus, A., & Oransky, I. (2014). Publishing: The peer-review scam. Nature, 515, 480–482. doi:10.1038/515480a.
15. Florian, R. V. (2012). Aggregating post-publication peer reviews and ratings. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 6, 31. doi:10.3389/fncom.2012.00031.
16. Galbraith, D. W. (2015). Redrawing the frontiers in the age of post-publication review. Frontiers in Genetics, 6, 198. doi:10.3389/fgene.2015.00198.
17. Gasparyan, A. Y., Yessirkepov, M., Voronov, A. A., Gorin, S. V., Koroleva, A. M., & Kitas, G. D. (2016). Statement on publication ethics for editors and publishers. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 31(9), 1351–1354. doi:10.3346/jkms.2016.31.9.1351.
18. Geck, C. (2004). Identifying scholarly (peer reviewed) journals and articles! Kean University Library FAQ Guide. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:kgjdpqR-yjgJ:www.kean.edu/~library/brochure/Identifying_Scholarly_(Peer-Reviewed)_Journals_or_Articles_FAQ_Guide.doc+&cd=4&hl=hu&ct=clnk&gl=hu. Last accessed November 21, 2016.
19. Grant, R. P. (2009). Impact factors, post-publication peer review and other metrics. Proceedings of the Charleston Library Conference. doi:10.5703/1288284314757.
20. Haugh, M. (2013). Speaker meaning and accountability in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 48(1), 41–56. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.009.
21. Hausmann, L., Murphy, S. P., & Publication Committee of the International Society for Neurochemistry (ISN). (2016). The challenges for scientific publishing, 60 years on. Journal of Neurochemistry. doi:10.1111/jnc.13550. (in press).
22. Hunter, J. (2012). Post-publication peer review: Opening up scientific conversation. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 6(63), 161–162. doi:10.3389/fncom.2012.00063.
23. Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2012). Why science is not necessarily self-correcting. Perspectives in Psychological Science, 7(6), 645–654. doi:10.1177/1745691612464056.
24. Khan, K. (2010). Is open peer review the fairest system? No. British Medical Journal, 341, c6425. doi:10.1136/bmj.c6425.
25. Knoepfler, P. (2015). Reviewing post-publication peer review. Trends in Genetics, 31(5), 221–223. doi:10.1016/j.tig.2015.03.006.
26. Kornfeld, D. S., & Titus, S. L. (2016). Stop ignoring misconduct. Nature, 537(7618), 29–30. doi:10.1038/537029a.
27. Kovanis, M., Porcher, R., Ravaud, P., & Trinquart, L. (2016). The global burden of journal peer review in the biomedical literature: Strong imbalance in the collective enterprise. PLoS ONE, 11(11), e0166387. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0166387.
28. Kravitz, D. J., & Baker, C. I. (2012). Toward a new model of scientific publishing: Discussion and a proposal. In N. Kriegeskorte & D. Deca (Eds.), Beyond open access: Visions for open evaluation of scientific papers by post-publication peer review. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 5, 17–28. doi: 10.3389/fncom.2011.00055 (Article 55).
29. Kriegeskorte, N., Walther, A., & Deca, D. (2012). An emerging consensus for open evaluation: 18 visions for the future of scientific publishing. In N. Kriegeskorte & D. Deca (Eds.), Beyond open access: Visions for open evaluation of scientific papers by post-publication peer review. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 6, 6–10. doi: 10.3389/fncom.2012.00094 (Article 94).
30. Lee, C. (2012). Open peer review by a selected-papers network. In N. Kriegeskorte & D. Deca (Eds.), Beyond open access: Visions for open evaluation of scientific papers by post-publication peer review. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience 6, 44–58. doi: 10.3389/fncom.2012.00001 (Article 1).
31. Markie, M. (2015). Post-publication peer review, in all its guises, is here to stay. Insights, 28(2), 107–110. doi:10.1629/uksg.245.
32. McNutt, M. (2016). Due process in the Twitter age. Science, 352(6284), 387. doi:10.1126/science.aaf8885.
33. Neuroskeptic, (2013). Anonymity in science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(5), 195–196. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2013.03.004.
34. Patel, G. (2014). Why training and specialization is needed for peer review: A case study of peer review for randomized controlled trials. BMC Medicine, 12, 128. doi:10.1186/s12916-014-0128-z.
35. PLoS Medicine Editor. (2006). The impact factor game. It is time to find a better way to assess the scientific literature. PLoS Medicine, 3, e291. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0030291.
36. Priem, J., & Hemminger, B. M. (2012). Decoupling the scholarly journal. In N. Kriegeskorte & D. Deca (Eds.), Beyond open access: Visions for open evaluation of scientific papers by post-publication peer review. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 6, 98–110. doi: 10.3389/fncom.2012.00019 (Article 19).
37. Ramachandran, L., & Gehringer, E. F. (2012). Automatic quality assessment for peer reviews of student work. Paper presented at 2012 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, San Antonio, Texas. https://peer.asee.org/21005. Last accessed November 21, 2016.
38. Schulz, J. B., Cookson, M. R., & Hausmann, L. (2016). The impact of fraudulent and irreproducible data to the translational research crisis-solutions and implementation. Journal of Neurochemistry, 139(Suppl 2), 253–270. doi:10.1111/jnc.13844.
39. Smith, R. (2011). What is post publication peer review? http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2011/04/06/richard-smith-what-is-post-publication-peer-review/. Last accessed November 21, 2016.
40. Stahel, P. F., & Moore, E. E. (2014). Peer review for biomedical publications: We can improve the system. BMC Medicine, 12, 179. doi:10.1186/s12916-014-0179-1.
41. Stirling, J. (2015). The dark side of post-publication peer review. http://physicsfocus.org/dark-side-post-publication-peer-review/. Last accessed November 21, 2016.
42. Stoye, E. (2015). Post publication peer review comes of age. http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2015/01/post-publication-peer-review-stap-comes-age. Last accessed November 21, 2016.
43. Swartz, A. (2013). Post-publication peer review mainstreamed. The Scientist, 22 October, 2013. http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/37969/title/Post-Publication-Peer-Review-Mainstreamed/. Last accessed November 21, 2016.
44. Tachibana, C. (2014). A scientist’s guide to social media. Science. doi:10.1126/science.opms.r1400141.
45. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2015). A PPPR road-map for the plant sciences: Cementing a road-worthy action plan. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 5(2), 15–21. doi:10.5901/jesr.2015.v5n2p15.
46. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2016a). An error is an error… is an erratum: The ethics of not correcting errors in the science literature. Publishing Research Quarterly, 32(3), 220–226. doi:10.1007/s12109-016-9469-0.
47. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2016b). The importance of the anonymous voice in post-publication peer review. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(1), 243. doi:10.1002/asi.23588.
48. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2016c). Vigilantism in science: The need and the risks. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 5(3), 9–12. doi:10.5901/ajis.2016.v5n3p9.
49. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2016d). Science watchdogs. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 5(3), 13–15. doi:10.5901/ajis.2016.v5n3p13.
50. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2016e). On the abuse of online submission systems, fake peer reviews and editor-created accounts. Persona y Bioética 20(2). (in press).
51. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2016f). The militarization of science, and subsequent criminalization of scientists. Journal of Interdisciplinary Medicine, 1(2), 214–215. doi:10.1515/jim-2016-0031.
52. Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Al-Khatib, A. (2016). Should authors be requested to suggest peer reviewers? Science and Engineering Ethics. doi:10.1007/s11948-016-9842-6. (in press).
53. Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Blatt, M. R. (2016). Does the anonymous voice have a place in scholarly publishing? Plant Physiology, 170(4), 1899–1902. doi:10.1104/pp.15.01939.
54. Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Dobránszki, J. (2015a). Problems with traditional science publishing and finding a wider niche for post-publication peer review. Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance, 22(1), 22–40. doi:10.1080/08989621.2014.899909.
55. Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Dobránszki, J. (2015b). Potential dangers with open access files in the expanding open data movement. Publishing Research Quarterly, 31(4), 298–305. doi:10.1007/s12109-015-9420-9.
56. Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Dobránszki, J. (2015c). The role of the anonymous voice in post-publication peer review versus traditional peer review. KOME, 3(2), 90–94. doi:10.17646/KOME.2015.27.
57. Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Dobránszki, J. (2016). Notices and policies for retractions, expressions of concern, errata and corrigenda: Their importance, content, and context. Science and Engineering Ethics. doi:10.1007/s11948-016-9769-y. (in press).
58. Tennant, J. (2016). Review instructions for ScienceOpen. http://blog.scienceopen.com/2016/06/review-instructions-for-scienceopen/. Last accessed November 21, 2016.
59. Walker, R., & Rocha da Silva, P. (2015). Emerging trends in peer review—a survey. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 9, 169. doi:10.3389/fnins.2015.00169.
60. WCRI. (2010). Singapore statement on research integrity. 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity. 21–24 July 2010; Singapore. Available http://www.singaporestatement.org/statement.html. Last accessed November 21, 2016.
61. Williams, J., & Roberts, D. (2016). Academic integrity: Exploring tensions between perception and practice in the contemporary university. SRHE Report, p. 41 http://www.srhe.ac.uk/downloads/WILLIAMSJoannaROBERTSDavid.pdf. Last accessed November 21, 2016.