Advertisement

Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 323–325 | Cite as

Reflection on the Fazlul Sarkar versus PubPeer (“John Doe”) Case

  • Jaime A. Teixeira da SilvaEmail author
Letter

Dear Editors,

Science is in a really complicated and troubled state. Perhaps, as never before, the culture of science has come under unprecedented scrutiny, and attack. In this state of conflict, scientists are finding themselves pitted against other scientists, and independent science watchdogs have emerged (Teixeira da Silva 2016) in an apparent bid to hold the scientific establishment accountable. This has been effectively achieved in recent years through acts of whistle-blowing, and public exposure or shaming, facilitated by powerful tools to mask commentators’ identities, including the ability to comment on sites like PubPeer (https://www.pubpeer.com/) or Retraction Watch (http://retractionwatch.com/), anonymously (Teixeira da Silva et al. 2017). A more conservative approach to post-publication peer review (PPPR) (Teixeira da Silva 2015), which involves both factual correction and whistle-blowing, is followed at and by PubMed Commons (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedcommons),...

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

Ethical standards

The author has commented anonymously on PubPeer and as a registered user.

References

  1. Blatt, M. R. (2015). Vigilante science. Plant Physiology, 169(2), 907–909. doi: 10.1104/pp.15.01443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. McCook, A. (2016). PubPeer wins appeal of court ruling to unmask commenters. http://retractionwatch.com/2016/12/07/pubpeer-wins-appeal-court-ruling-unmask-commenters/. Last Accessed December 9, 2016.
  3. 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
  4. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2016). Science watchdogs. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 5(3), 13–15. doi: 10.5901/ajis.2016.v5n3p13.Google Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Teixeira da Silva, J. A., Dobránszki, J., & Al-Khatib, A. (2017). Fortifying the corrective nature of post-publication peer review: Identifying weakness, use of journal clubs, and rewarding conscientious behavior. Science and Engineering Ethics. doi: 10.1007/s11948-016-9854-2. (In Press).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.KagawaJapan

Personalised recommendations