Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 1213–1226 | Cite as

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

  • Jaime A. Teixeira da SilvaEmail author
  • Aceil Al-Khatib
  • Judit Dobránszki


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.


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


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research for this paper was conducted in the absence of any commercial, financial or other relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.


  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.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bourne, P. E., & Korngreen, A. (2006). Ten simple rules for reviewers. PLoS Computational Biology, 2(9), e110. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.0020110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, C. T. (2016). The likely challenges of (post) publication peer review. Last accessed November 21, 2016.
  8. Buranyi, S. (2016). Anonymous internet vigilantes are taking peer review into their own hands. Last accessed November 21, 2016.
  9. Cintas, P. (2016). Peer review: From recognition to improved practices. FEMS Microbiology Letters. doi: 10.1093/femsle/fnw115.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  12. Eisen, M., & Vosshall, L. B. (2016). Coupling pre-prints and post-publication peer review for fast, cheap, fair, and effective science publishing. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ferguson, C., Marcus, A., & Oransky, I. (2014). Publishing: The peer-review scam. Nature, 515, 480–482. doi: 10.1038/515480a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Florian, R. V. (2012). Aggregating post-publication peer reviews and ratings. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 6, 31. doi: 10.3389/fncom.2012.00031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Geck, C. (2004). Identifying scholarly (peer reviewed) journals and articles! Kean University Library FAQ Guide. 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.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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).Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Khan, K. (2010). Is open peer review the fairest system? No. British Medical Journal, 341, c6425. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c6425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Knoepfler, P. (2015). Reviewing post-publication peer review. Trends in Genetics, 31(5), 221–223. doi: 10.1016/j.tig.2015.03.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kornfeld, D. S., & Titus, S. L. (2016). Stop ignoring misconduct. Nature, 537(7618), 29–30. doi: 10.1038/537029a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  32. McNutt, M. (2016). Due process in the Twitter age. Science, 352(6284), 387. doi: 10.1126/science.aaf8885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Neuroskeptic, (2013). Anonymity in science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(5), 195–196. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2013.03.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Smith, R. (2011). 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stirling, J. (2015). The dark side of post-publication peer review. Last accessed November 21, 2016.
  42. Stoye, E. (2015). Post publication peer review comes of age. Last accessed November 21, 2016.
  43. Swartz, A. (2013). Post-publication peer review mainstreamed. The Scientist, 22 October, 2013. Last accessed November 21, 2016.
  44. Tachibana, C. (2014). A scientist’s guide to social media. Science. doi: 10.1126/science.opms.r1400141.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  49. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2016d). Science watchdogs. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 5(3), 13–15. doi: 10.5901/ajis.2016.v5n3p13.Google Scholar
  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).Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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).Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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).Google Scholar
  58. Tennant, J. (2016). 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. WCRI. (2010). Singapore statement on research integrity. 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity. 21–24 July 2010; Singapore. Available 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 Last accessed November 21, 2016.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva
    • 1
    Email author
  • Aceil Al-Khatib
    • 2
  • Judit Dobránszki
    • 3
  1. 1.Kagawa-kenJapan
  2. 2.Faculty of DentistryJordan University of Science and TechnologyIrbidJordan
  3. 3.Research Institute of Nyíregyháza, IAREFUniversity of DebrecenNyíregyházaHungary

Personalised recommendations