Does the Anonymous Voice Have a Place in Scholarly Publishing?

Silva, Jaime A. Teixeira da; Blatt, Michael R.

doi:10.1104/pp.15.01939

Cited by 15 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…18,19 In some cases, multiple L2Es might be published in response to a paper while more rarely, readers and editors can debate in a coordinated and responsive manner within the same L2E. 20,21 Occasionally, readers of papers with limitations might wish to comment officially, i.e. as a published comment, opinion, or L2E, on a published paper.…”

Section: Academic Functions Of Letters To the Editor And Commentariesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The importance for journals to publish commentaries and letters to the editor in the age of COVID-19

Silva

2021

Int J Community Med Public Health

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Letters to the editor (L2Es) and commentaries play an essential role in science communication and in critical analysis of the biomedical literature. This importance could not be more profound or more pertinent than now, in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, where there is considerable need to openly, transparently and urgently discuss medical findings related to healthcare. L2Es and commentaries offer fair opportunity for authors to comment on matters of general interest, or to challenge the findings of published papers, without fearing any risk of retaliation while being able to express their personal opinion about an issue that matters to them, and allowing the challenged authors to respond within an academic setting. It is important to expand this form of communication via L2Es and commentaries to biomedical and healthcare policy journals that might lack this option.

show abstract

Section: Academic Functions Of Letters To the Editor And Commentariesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The importance for journals to publish commentaries and letters to the editor in the age of COVID-19

Silva

2021

Int J Community Med Public Health

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, traditional peer review has failed at many levels, such that retracted articles continue to be cited as valid (Bar-Ilan and Halevi, 2017; Budd et al, 1999; Teixeira da Silva and Bornemann-Cimenti, 2017; Teixeira da Silva and Dobránszki, 2017a), so the only effective means of dealing with this failure is through post-publication peer review (PPPR), which instills a new culture of awareness among authors, editors, and publishers to not only identify errors, but also to correct them (Teixeira da Silva and Dobránszki, 2015). However, the publishing status quo is still very resistant to accepting anonymous complaints about errors in the literature (Teixeira da Silva and Blatt, 2016). This leaves most whistle-blowers or conscientious academics who spot erroneous literature few centralized platforms to report their concerns anonymously, except for, at present, PubPeer, 2 although the culture of acceptance of anonymous critique, provided that it is factually valid and tone-neutral, simply reflects a need to change the culture of acceptance of critique, which could begin with action via concerted efforts in established journal clubs (Teixeira da Silva et al, 2017).…”

Section: Errors Are Rife Retractions Are Booming But the Stigma Is mentioning

confidence: 99%

Ending the retraction stigma: Encouraging the reporting of errors in the biomedical record

Silva

Al-Khatib

2019

Research Ethics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Retractions are on the rise as a result of a surge in post-publication peer review and an emboldened anonymous whistle-blowing movement. Cognizant that their brand may be damaged as a result of not correcting problematic literature, journals and publishers that are loosely considered to be non-“predatory” are trying to contain the deluge of reports on flawed research that has flooded the biomedical and scientific literature. Within this climate, many studies have started to be retracted and corrected, reinforcing the stigmatization associated with retractions, i.e., having a retraction is considered to be a bad or negative thing. Negative retraction stigmatization has mainly been borne by authors, whereas journals and publishers, except for headline-grabbing reports, have thus far largely avoided this stigma. One of the efforts to destigmatize retractions, at least those for honest errors, has been to try to relabel or rebrand retractions. The terms “self-retraction”, “amendment”, “publisher-caused error”, and others have emerged, but such a diverse lexicon may complicate the publishing landscape more than it resolves the stigma. Seeking euphemistic terms to represent a truth within a toxic context of negative stigmatization only politicizes the issue, and does not resolve it. We suggest that a change is needed in the culture within the biomedical community, to acceptance of critique, and that the culture of shaming needs to be halted in order to achieve this. Only then can academics assume greater responsibility, without the risk of being shamed, of retracting their faulty literature, “honestly”, when they feel that this is needed.

show abstract

“…Suddenly, within the space of less than a handful of years, decades or centuries of what was once considered to be an infallible system, appears to be tearing apart at the seams. To avoid the total collapse of the system, while holding all parties accountable, namely the authors, editors, and publishers, a new culture most likely has to be embraced that incorporates and fortifies journal clubs, online discussion forums, such as PubMed Commons, PubPeer or Publons ( 33 ), and the anonymous voice ( 34 , 35 ).…”

Section: Legends Are Falling and The Role Of Post-publication Peer Rmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does the Anonymous Voice Have a Place in Scholarly Publishing?

Cited by 15 publications

References 10 publications

The importance for journals to publish commentaries and letters to the editor in the age of COVID-19

The importance for journals to publish commentaries and letters to the editor in the age of COVID-19

Ending the retraction stigma: Encouraging the reporting of errors in the biomedical record

It may be easier to publish than correct or retract faulty biomedical literature

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About