Articles

Post-publication peer review in biomedical journals: overcoming obstacles and disincentives to knowledge sharing

Karen Shashok, Valerie Matarese

Abstract


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. Here we report our experience publishing a commentary intended to offer constructive feedback on a previously published article. We found that publishing our comment required more time and effort than foreseen, because of obstacles encountered at some journals. Using our professional experience as authors’ editors 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.

 


Keywords

article processing charge; commentary; correspondence; editorial policies; instructions to authors; incentives; letter to the editor; open access; post-publication peer review; research evaluation criteria

Full Text:

PDF


DOI: https://doi.org/10.13130/2282-5398/10125

NBN: http://nbn.depositolegale.it/urn%3Anbn%3Ait%3Aunimi-23856

References


Allison DB, Brown AW, George BJ, et al. (2016) Reproducibility: A tragedy of errors. Nature 530(7588): 27–9. https://www.nature.com/news/reproducibility-a-tragedy-of-errors-1.19264. Accessed 19 April 2018

Altman DG (2005) Unjustified restrictions on letters to the editor. PLoS Medicine 2(5): e126. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020126. Accessed 22 April 2018

ANVUR (2015) Evaluation of research quality 2011-2014 (VQR 2011–2014) Call for participation. Rome: Agenzia Nazionale di Valutazione del Sistema Universitario e della Ricerca. http://www.anvur.org/attachments/article/825/Call%20VQR_2011_2014_11nov_%7E.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2018

Burrough-Boenisch J (2013) Editing non-native English: reflections from a Netherlands-based editor on those who do it and the skills they should have. The 21st Century Text 13(1). http://21centurytext.wordpress.com/editing-non-native-english/. Accessed 24 April 2018

Cameron C, Chang S, Pagel W (2011) Scientific English: a program for addressing linguistic barriers of international research trainees in the United States. Journal of Cancer Education 26(1): 72–8. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13187-010-0143-5

Eastwood S (1981) The author’s editor in the setting of a university or research center. Journal of Research Communication Studies 3: 211–6

Galipeau J, Cobey KD, Barbour V, et al. (2017) An international survey and modified Delphi process revealed editors’ perceptions, training needs, and ratings of competency-related statements for the development of core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals [version 1; referees: 2 approved]. F1000Research 6: 1634. https://f1000research.com/articles/6-1634/v1. Accessed 22 May 2018

Ghanbari A, Derakhshan Rad S-A (2015) Post publication peer review in Iranian biomedical journals. GMR Galen Medical Journal 4(1): 1–7. www.gmj.ir/index.php/gmj/article/download/180/pdf_58. Accessed 22 April 2018

Goldacre B (2016) JAMA reject correction letters on all trials they have misreported. Compare. Posted 24 March 2016. http://compare-trials.org/blog/jama-reject-all-correction-letters/. Accessed 22 April 2018

Hames I (2013) The future of peer review. EASE/ISMTE Conference, Blankenberge, 23 September 2013. http://www.ease.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/irene_hames_the_future_of_peer_review_september_2013.pdf. Accessed 2 April 2018

Iverson C, Christiansen S, Flanagin A, et al. (2009) AMA Manual of Style: a guide for authors and editors, 10th edn. New York: Oxford University Press. (section 6.1.9). http://www.amamanualofstyle.com/view/10.1093/jama/9780195176339.001.0001/med-9780195176339-div2-248. Accessed 24 April 2018

Jefferson T, Shashok K (2003) Journals: how to decide what’s worth publishing (Correspondence). Nature 421: 209–10. https://www.nature.com/articles/421209b. Accessed 22 May 2018

Jonkers K, Zacharewicz T (2016) Research performance based funding systems: a comparative assessment. EUR 27837 EN; doi:10.2791/659483. http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC101043/kj1a27837enn.pdf. Accessed 22 May 2018

Knoepfler P (2015) Reviewing post-publication peer review. Trends in Genetics 31(5): 221–3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4472664/. Accessed 21 April 2018

Liesegang TJ (2010) Peer review should continue after publication. American Journal of Ophthalmology 149(3): 359–60. http://www.ajo.com/article/S0002-9394(09)00878-2/fulltext. Accessed 22 May 2018

Marcus A, Oransky I (2011) The paper is not sacred (Comment). Nature 480: 449–50

Markie ML (2015) Post-publication peer review, in all its guises, is here to stay. Insights 28(2): 107–10. https://insights.uksg.org/articles/10.1629/uksg.245/. Accessed 29 March 2018

Matarese V (2016) Editing research: the author editing approach to providing effective support to writers of research papers. Medford: Information Today, Inc.

Matarese V, Shashok K (2018) Improving the biomedical research literature; how insights from authors’ editors can help journal editors define and refine their core competencies. [version 2; referees: 2 approved]. F1000Research 7:109 (doi: 10.12688/f1000research.13760.2) https://f1000research.com/articles/7-109/v2. Accessed 9 May 2018

Mazzoni K, Iori R (2014) Criteri ministeriali per la valutazione della produzione scientifica (pubblicazioni). Reggio Emilia: Biblioteca Medica Corradini. http://biblioteca.asmn.re.it/allegati/Regole%20MInisteriali%20IF%20RC2015%20%282014%29.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2018

Mebane CA, Meyer JS (2016) Environmental toxicology without chemistry and publication without discourse: Linked impediments to better science. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 35(6): 1335–6. https://setac.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/etc.3418

MECD (2017) Resolución de 23 de noviembre de 2017, de la Comisión Nacional Evaluadora de la Actividad Investigadora, por la que se publican los criterios específicos aprobados para cada uno de los campos de evaluación. Boletín Oficial del Estado núm. 292, de 1 de diciembre de 2017, páginas 117060 a 117080 (21 págs.), Sección: III. Otras disposiciones, Departamento: Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte. https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2017-14085. Accessed 22 May 2018

MIUR (2016) Decreto 7 giugno 2016, n. 120. Regolamento recante criteri e parametri per la valutazione dei candidati ai fini dell’attribuzione dell’abilitazione scientifica nazionale per l’accesso alla prima e alla seconda fascia dei professori universitari… Allegato A. http://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2016/07/05/16G00130/sg. Accessed 8 May 2018

Moher D, Galipeau J, Alam S, et al. (2017) Core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals: consensus statement. BMC Medicine 15: 167. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-017-0927-0. Accessed 21 April 2018

NCBI (2018) PubMed Commons to be discontinued. Posted 1 February 2018, updated 27 February 2018. https://ncbiinsights.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2018/02/01/pubmed-commons-to-be-discontinued/. Accessed 2 May 2018

PLOS Medicine Editors (2013) Getting closer to a fully correctable and connected research literature. PLoS Medicine. Published: March 26, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001408. Accessed 19 April 2018

Poole C (1996) Invited commentary: Evolution of epidemiologic evidence on magnetic fields and childhood cancers. American Journal of Epidemiology 143(2): 129–32. pdfs.semanticscholar.org/def7/54d0b4cf598faab97a4d6ae72a764d4ab9ca.pdf. Accessed 21 May 2018

Rennie D (1998) Freedom and responsibility in medical publication. Setting the balance right. JAMA 280(3): 300–2. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/187765. Accessed 22 April 2018 .

Ross-Hellauer T (2016) Disambiguating post-publication peer review. OpenAIRE blog. 2016-09-14. https://blogs.openaire.eu/?p=1205. Accessed 27 March 2018

Saunders T (2011) Post-publication peer review: blogs vs letters to the editor. Science of Blogging. Posted 25 July 2011. https://web.archive.org/web/20110826203612/http://scienceofblogging.com/post-publication-peer-review-blogs-vs-letters-to-the-editor/. Accessed 24 April 2018.

Shashok K (2001) Author’s editors: facilitators of science information transfer. Learned Publishing 14(2): 113–21. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1087/095315101300059495. Accessed 22 May 2018

Smith R (2006) Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 99(4): 178–82. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/. Accessed 8 May 2018

Smith R (2011) What is post publication peer review? The BMJ Opinion. Posted April 6, 2011. http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2011/04/06/richard-smith-what-is-post-publication-peer-review/. Accessed 19 April 2018

Stang A, Poole C, Schmidt-Pokrzywniak A (2008) Pre-peer review, peer review, and post-peer review: three areas with potential for improvement. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 61(4): 309–10. http://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(07)00382-4/fulltext

Tacker MM (1980) Author’s editors: catalysts of scientific publishing. CBE Views 3: 3–11

Tennant J (2017) What are the barriers to post-publication peer review? ScienceOpen Blog. September 29, 2017. http://blog.scienceopen.com/2017/03/what-are-the-barriers-to-post-publication-peer-review/. Accessed 12 March 2018

Tennant JP, Dugan JM, Graziotin D, et al. (2017) A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review [version 3; referees: 2 approved]. F1000Research 6: 1151 (doi: 10.12688/f1000research.12037.3) https://f1000research.com/articles/6-1151/v3. Accessed 9 May 2018

von Elm E, Wandel S, Jüni P (2009) The role of correspondence sections in post-publication peer review: A bibliometric study of general and internal medicine journals. Scientometrics 81(3): 747–55. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-009-2236-0

Wager E, Jefferson T (2001) Shortcomings of peer review in biomedical journals. Learned Publishing 14(4): 257–63. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1087/095315101753141356. Accessed 21 May 2018

Winker M (2015) The promise of post-publication peer review: how do we get there from here? Learned Publishing 28: 143–5. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1087/20150209. Accessed 19 April 2018


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.