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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Bastian, H. (2014). A stronger post-publication culture is needed for better science. PLoS Medicine, 11(12), e1001772. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001772.
Bourne, P. E., & Korngreen, A. (2006). Ten simple rules for reviewers. PLoS Computational Biology, 2(9), e110. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.0020110.
Brown, C. T. (2016). The likely challenges of (post) publication peer review. http://ivory.idyll.org/blog/2016-on-pppr.html. Last accessed November 21, 2016.
Buranyi, S. (2016). Anonymous internet vigilantes are taking peer review into their own hands. http://motherboard.vice.com/en_uk/read/anonymous-internet-vigilantes-are-taking-peer-review-into-their-own-hands-pubpeer. Last accessed November 21, 2016.
Cintas, P. (2016). Peer review: From recognition to improved practices. FEMS Microbiology Letters. doi:10.1093/femsle/fnw115.
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.
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.
Eisen, M., & Vosshall, L. B. (2016). Coupling pre-prints and post-publication peer review for fast, cheap, fair, and effective science publishing. http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1820. Last accessed November 21, 2016.
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.
Ferguson, C., Marcus, A., & Oransky, I. (2014). Publishing: The peer-review scam. Nature, 515, 480–482. doi:10.1038/515480a.
Florian, R. V. (2012). Aggregating post-publication peer reviews and ratings. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 6, 31. doi:10.3389/fncom.2012.00031.
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.
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.
Geck, C. (2004). Identifying scholarly (peer reviewed) journals and articles! Kean University Library FAQ Guide. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:kgjdpqR-yjgJ:www.kean.edu/~library/brochure/Identifying_Scholarly_(Peer-Reviewed)_Journals_or_Articles_FAQ_Guide.doc+&cd=4&hl=hu&ct=clnk&gl=hu. Last accessed November 21, 2016.
Grant, R. P. (2009). Impact factors, post-publication peer review and other metrics. Proceedings of the Charleston Library Conference. doi:10.5703/1288284314757.
Haugh, M. (2013). Speaker meaning and accountability in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 48(1), 41–56. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.009.
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).
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.
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2012). Why science is not necessarily self-correcting. Perspectives in Psychological Science, 7(6), 645–654. doi:10.1177/1745691612464056.
Khan, K. (2010). Is open peer review the fairest system? No. British Medical Journal, 341, c6425. doi:10.1136/bmj.c6425.
Knoepfler, P. (2015). Reviewing post-publication peer review. Trends in Genetics, 31(5), 221–223. doi:10.1016/j.tig.2015.03.006.
Kornfeld, D. S., & Titus, S. L. (2016). Stop ignoring misconduct. Nature, 537(7618), 29–30. doi:10.1038/537029a.
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.
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).
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).
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).
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.
McNutt, M. (2016). Due process in the Twitter age. Science, 352(6284), 387. doi:10.1126/science.aaf8885.
Neuroskeptic, (2013). Anonymity in science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(5), 195–196. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2013.03.004.
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.
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.
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).
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. https://peer.asee.org/21005. Last accessed November 21, 2016.
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.
Smith, R. (2011). What is post publication peer review? http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2011/04/06/richard-smith-what-is-post-publication-peer-review/. Last accessed November 21, 2016.
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.
Stirling, J. (2015). The dark side of post-publication peer review. http://physicsfocus.org/dark-side-post-publication-peer-review/. Last accessed November 21, 2016.
Stoye, E. (2015). Post publication peer review comes of age. http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2015/01/post-publication-peer-review-stap-comes-age. Last accessed November 21, 2016.
Swartz, A. (2013). Post-publication peer review mainstreamed. The Scientist, 22 October, 2013. http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/37969/title/Post-Publication-Peer-Review-Mainstreamed/. Last accessed November 21, 2016.
Tachibana, C. (2014). A scientist’s guide to social media. Science. doi:10.1126/science.opms.r1400141.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2016d). Science watchdogs. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 5(3), 13–15. doi:10.5901/ajis.2016.v5n3p13.
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).
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Tennant, J. (2016). Review instructions for ScienceOpen. http://blog.scienceopen.com/2016/06/review-instructions-for-scienceopen/. Last accessed November 21, 2016.
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.
WCRI. (2010). Singapore statement on research integrity. 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity. 21–24 July 2010; Singapore. Available http://www.singaporestatement.org/statement.html. Last accessed November 21, 2016.
Williams, J., & Roberts, D. (2016). Academic integrity: Exploring tensions between perception and practice in the contemporary university. SRHE Report, p. 41 http://www.srhe.ac.uk/downloads/WILLIAMSJoannaROBERTSDavid.pdf. Last accessed November 21, 2016.
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.
About this article
Cite this article
Teixeira da Silva, J.A., Al-Khatib, A. & Dobránszki, J. Fortifying the Corrective Nature of Post-publication Peer Review: Identifying Weaknesses, Use of Journal Clubs, and Rewarding Conscientious Behavior. Sci Eng Ethics 23, 1213–1226 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9854-2
- Errors in the literature
- PubMed Commons
- Status quo