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

Abstract

Science affects multiple basic sectors of society. Therefore, the findings made in science impact what takes place at a commercial level. More specifically, errors in the literature, incorrect findings, fraudulent data, poorly written scientific reports, or studies that cannot be reproduced not only serve as a burden on tax-payers' money, but they also serve to diminish public trust in science and its findings. Therefore, there is every need to fortify the validity of data that exists in the science literature, not only to build trust among peers, and to sustain that trust, but to reestablish trust in the public and private academic sectors that are witnessing a veritable battle-ground in the world of science publishing, in some ways spurred by the rapid evolution of the open access (OA) movement. Even though many science journals, traditional and OA, claim to be peer reviewed, the truth is that different levels of peer review occur, and in some cases no, insufficient, or pseudo-peer review takes place. This ultimately leads to the erosion of quality and importance of science, allowing essentially anything to become published, provided that an outlet can be found. In some cases, predatory OA journals serve this purpose, allowing papers to be published, often without any peer review or quality control. In the light of an explosion of such cases in predatory OA publishing, and in severe inefficiencies and possible bias in the peer review of even respectable science journals, as evidenced by the increasing attention given to retractions, there is an urgent need to reform the way in which authors, editors, and publishers conduct the first line of quality control, the peer review. One way to address the problem is through post-publication peer review (PPPR), an efficient complement to traditional peer-review that allows for the continuous improvement and strengthening of the quality of science publishing. PPPR may also serve as a way to renew trust in scientific findings by correcting the literature. This article explores what is broadly being said about PPPR in the literature, so as to establish awareness and a possible first-tier prototype for the sciences for which such a system is undeveloped or weak.

The role of the anonymous voice in post-publication peer review versus traditional peer review

“…Consequently, scanning papers for errors such as duplicated figures, does not require a special set of skills, i.e., it does not require a peer per se. In contrast, in-depth analysis of the scientific content, methodology used, or conclusions drawn would require topic-specific and specialized peers (Teixeira da Silva and Dobránszki, 2015). The ideal PPPR structure would accommodate anonymous comments, which would be sifted and moderated by a voluntary publicly regulated editor board.…”

“…The difference with anonymous commenting that one may observe at PubPeer -a PPPR web-site that allows named or anonymous commenting about published manuscripts -is that in TPR, the peers are contracted and their identities are known to the editors who vet them, i.e., their identity is confidential, whereas as PubPeer, they could be anyone. However, the apparent spike in retractions in recent years may be reflecting that not all is well with TPR, and that it is not only subject to bias and subjectivity, but it is also fallible and incomplete (Teixeira da Silva and Dobránszki, 2015). Despite these weaknesses, TPR may still in fact be the best system available, but could be reinforced by open peer review (OPR), or by PPPR.…”

A New Replication Norm for Psychology

“…That being said, construing replications as an essential part of the research process does not mean psychology cannot benefit from promoting such a norm. Furthermore, peer reviewing could (and perhaps should) also more accurately be viewed as part and parcel of the research process because science arguably involves continuous peer review given that any finding at any future point in time can be questioned and/or refuted by new evidence [41,98].…”

Questioning the ethics of John Bohannon’s hoaxes and stings in the context of science publishing

“…Bohannon's widely acclaimed results fortified the notion that the open access movement has become corrupted to some extent as a result of lax, false or non-existent peer review. Incidentally, this is also a problem in traditional publishers (Teixeira da Silva and Dobránszki, 2015). Despite Bohannon's findings, a basal premise of the Bohannon "sting" operation was widely ignored, and rarely acknowledged, namely that some or all of the requirements for submission of a manuscript to these POA journals were not met, and were either false or non-existent.…”