Recently I learnt about 'Post-Publication Peer-Review.' I can not figure out what this means on the article already published. Does this discard the so called 'peer-review' process that takes place before the article is accepted for publication? In my opinion, I think this should not be. I think instead of looking for another way of review, the peer-review should be improved especially on the case of regarding names of authors and where they come from to give better comments on their work rather than the content of the work. Your opinion is needed and highly welcome.
Given the increased retraction rate of flawed studies that have escaped the scrutiny of traditional peer review, and due to the proliferation of predatory journals falsely claiming peer review, and because science supposedly corrects itself , necessity lead to post publication peer review, where all experts in the field are invited to assess the quality of the published work.
And here is a hypothetical: Author A claims to have conducted a study in his lab, s/he adds the name of an expert as a coauthor and submits this apparently perfectly written manuscript to a prestigious journal whose editor is a friend of his/hers. The fabricated article gets published, and only God knows the financial consequences of attempts to replicate the flawed work ; without post-publication peer review, the truth will never be out, and irreparable harm can not be prevented.
Given the increased retraction rate of flawed studies that have escaped the scrutiny of traditional peer review, and due to the proliferation of predatory journals falsely claiming peer review, and because science supposedly corrects itself , necessity lead to post publication peer review, where all experts in the field are invited to assess the quality of the published work.
And here is a hypothetical: Author A claims to have conducted a study in his lab, s/he adds the name of an expert as a coauthor and submits this apparently perfectly written manuscript to a prestigious journal whose editor is a friend of his/hers. The fabricated article gets published, and only God knows the financial consequences of attempts to replicate the flawed work ; without post-publication peer review, the truth will never be out, and irreparable harm can not be prevented.
Thank you Aceil. I think you have good points but I still believe that even the post peer review could still be manipulated depending on how it is done. Sometimes, it is left opened online for anybody to comment on.
Thank you Aceil Alkhatib for the interesting points you have raised here. The bottom line is that no particular method is perfect. Therefore, a paper should be thoroughly read before one on his own opinion could conclude the quality of such paper. Anyway, this method of review seems better.
This discussion trend is interesting, Aceli Alkhatib like you rightly said lot of articles like that have been published and have wider acceptance.
Good points by Aceil. I think the point mention by Samuel is very important ,because many researcher can still download these papers thinking the information on them is correct.To my opinion the best thing to do, is to completely remove the paper ,if it is proven beyond reasonable doubt ,that the information publish is wrong .
Anyway, Soh, I do not think it will be a good idea to remove the paper completely but rather the authors could be communicated with concerning the issue pointed out and then may be they might make the correction in the case of minor error. When major corrections are needed or completely proven wrong then the paper could be retracted but still will be available, who knows people can still learn from the mistake or some information from the paper could still be useful to some other researchers.
I agree. In addition to Olaniyi's points, removing the paper completely would delete evidence of research misconduct, fraud and fabrication.
Post-publication peer-review
The definition of the term as understood is that after a work is published, readers should be able to leave their thoughts on that article.
- Rob Walsh
-----------------------
To encourage readers and authors to further engage with the contents of an article, and for that further engagement to be closely associated with the article so that future readers don't have to reinvent the wheel as much as they might otherwise.
- Eric Baković
https://submissions.scholasticahq.com/conversation/questions/what-are-you-looking-for-in-post-publication-peer-review
Thank you very much, Krishnan Umachandran, for your contribution on this subject.
You pointed out some key points here through those quotations.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publication