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

Abstract

Most departments in any field of science that have a sound academic basis have discussion groups or journal clubs in which pertinent and relevant literature is frequently discussed, as a group. This paper shows how such discussions could help to fortify the post-publication peer review (PPPR) movement, and could thus fortify the value of traditional peer review, if their content and conclusions were made known to the wider academic community. Recently, there are some tools available for making PPPR viable, either as signed (PubMed Commons) or anonymous comments (PubPeer), or in a hybrid format (Publons). Thus, limited platforms are currently in place to accommodate and integrate PPPR as a supplement to traditional peer review, allowing for the open and public discussion of what is often publicly-funded science. This paper examines ways in which the opinions that emerge from journal clubs or discussion groups could help to fortify the integrity and reliability of science while increasing its accountability. A culture of reward for good and corrective behavior, rather than a culture that protects silence, would benefit science most.

Proliferation of Papers and Preprints During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic: Progress or Problems With Peer Review?

“…The social media driven post-publication peer review is quite different. 76,77 Not only is it open, but it brings in people of diverse expertise, viewpoints, and often people who have little prior beliefs or biases with respect to the subject matter. Critical appraisal of papers on social media, performed openly and in a nonformal style seems jarring to the uninitiated.…”

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

“…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). The end result of a change in culture shift within biomedical and science publishing that is independent of the cultural differences between authorship, that is able to accept critique, and act responsibly upon it, is a new culture of literature correction, in which, ideally, all errors are corrected, with the greatest errors, or fraud, corrected by retractions (Teixeira da Silva, 2016b).…”

Benefits and Threats to Using Social Media for Presenting and Implementing Evidence

“…Traditional peer-review processes have at times led to the publication of papers with nonreproducible results, incomplete or poorly described methodologies, or manipulated/potentially fraudulent data. 31 Social media provides a way to debate findings with a pace and immediacy that would be simply impossible through a journal's website or in a formal medium such as a letter to the editor. Open peer review has already been implemented (https://f1000.com/), allowing transparent reviews and free access to viewership.…”