https://riviste.unimi.it/index.php/roars <p>[Publication ceased]</p> Università degli Studi di Milano en-US RT. A Journal on Research Policy and Evaluation 2282-5398 Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:<ol type="a"><li>Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/" target="_new">Creative Commons Attribution License</a> that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.</li><li>Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.</li><li>Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See <a href="http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html" target="_new">The Effect of Open Access</a>).</li></ol> https://riviste.unimi.it/index.php/roars/article/view/10125 <p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span><span>The importance of post-publication peer review (PPPR) as a type of knowledge exchange has been emphasized by several authorities in research publishing, yet biomedical journals do not always facilitate this type of publication. H</span></span>ere we<span><span> report our experience publishing a commentary intended to offer constructive feedback on a previously published article.</span></span> We found that publishing our comment required more time and effort than foreseen, bec<span><span>ause of obstacles encountered at some journals. Using our professional experience as</span></span><span> authors’ </span><span><span>editors</span></span><span> </span><span><span>and our knowledge of publication policies as a starting point, we reflect on the probable reasons behind these obstacles, and suggest ways in which journals could make PPPR easier. In addition, we argue that PPPR should be more explicitly valued and rewarded in biomedical disciplines, and suggest how these publications could be included in research evaluations. Eliminating obstacles and disincentives to PPPR is essential in light of the key roles of post-publication analysis and commentary in drawing attention to shortcomings in published articles that were overlooked during pre-publication peer review.</span></span></p><p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; font-weight: normal;"> </p> Karen Shashok Valerie Matarese Copyright (c) 2018 RT. A Journal on Research Policy and Evaluation 2018-08-29 2018-08-29 6 1 10.13130/2282-5398/10125