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

Abstract

Abstract:Traditional peer review (TPR) has several limitations and weaknesses. Postpublication peer review is one practical way to repair the ills of TPR and reinforce it. A literature that is marked by errors is unhealthy and should, if given the opportunity, be corrected or further improved. The anonymous voice is one source of critique and differs from the blind peer review in TPR in which the reviewer remains anonymous to the authors and/or vice versa, but the identity is known to the editor. If unregulated, the anonymous voice can pose a threat to established editorial norms in TPR, to one of the most important criteria of science publishing, i.e., transparency, and to worthwhile discussion. Yet, if the anonymous voice is not heard, then a vast and potentially valuable pool of untapped opinions may be lost, opinions that may provide valuable solutions to improving TPR.

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

“…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 ).…”

What’s Not Being Discussed, or Considered, in Science Publishing?

“…The issue of anonymity is complex because it carries a negative connotation associated with whistle-blowing (12) but may also carry untold benefits, as demonstrated by hundreds of cases already documented at PubPeer and Retraction Watch. Some of these have led to investigations by journals and research institutes, resulting in corrections and even retractions (7). So, the issue of anonymity needs to be discussed, although excessive or intrusive regulation might hypothetically stifle the natural flow of PPPR.…”

Legends in Science: from Boom to Bust

“…Anonymity serves as one viable form of protection of scientific critics without negative repercussions to themselves, but with potentially damaging consequences to the accused. The anonymous voice thus represents an essential-but potentially dangerous-part of the publishing platform [22], or on extension of the traditional peer review process, even though such voices of critique are in general unwelcome by the wider scientific public [2]; ''anonymity is intimidating in itself'', and may originate from fear that their own work will be open to criticisms. Surely, moderated anonymous commentary in PPPR would be a useful tool to correcting the literature?…”