Problems with Traditional Science Publishing and Finding a Wider Niche for Post-Publication Peer Review
Problems with Traditional Science Publishing and Finding a Wider Niche for Post-Publication Peer Review
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/08989621.2014.899909
复制
发表时间：
2015-01-02
影响因子：
3.4
通讯作者：
Dobranszki, Judit
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Teixeira da Silva, Jaime A.;Dobranszki, Judit
科学影响社会的多个基本部门。因此，科学发现会影响商业层面的情况。更具体地说，文献中的错误、不正确的发现、欺诈性数据、写得不好的科学报告或无法复制的研究不仅给纳税人的钱造成负担，而且还会削弱公众对科学及其发现的信任。因此，非常需要加强科学文献中存在的数据的有效性，不仅是为了在同行之间建立信任并维持这种信任，而且是为了重建公共和私人学术部门的信任，这些部门正在见证科学出版领域真正的战场，在某种程度上受到开放获取（OA）运动快速发展的推动。尽管许多科学期刊，无论是传统期刊还是开放获取期刊，都声称经过同行评审，但事实是，存在不同程度的同行评审，在某些情况下，没有进行、不充分或伪同行评审。这最终会导致科学的质量和重要性受到侵蚀，只要能找到出路，基本上任何东西都可以出版。在某些情况下，掠夺性开放获取期刊就可以达到这个目的，允许论文发表，通常无需任何同行评审或质量控制。鉴于掠夺性开放获取出版中此类案件的激增，以及即使是受人尊敬的科学期刊的同行评审也存在严重低效和可能的偏见（对撤稿的关注日益增加证明了这一点），迫切需要改革作者、编辑和出版商进行第一道质量控制（即同行评审）的方式。解决这个问题的一种方法是通过出版后同行评审（PPPR），这是对传统同行评审的有效补充，可以不断改进和加强科学出版的质量。 PPPR 还可以作为通过纠正文献来重新恢复对科学发现的信任的一种方式。本文探讨了文献中关于 PPPR 的广泛说法，以便为此类系统尚未开发或薄弱的科学建立认识并建立可能的一级原型。
Science affects multiple basic sectors of society. Therefore, the findings made in science impact what takes place at a commercial level. More specifically, errors in the literature, incorrect findings, fraudulent data, poorly written scientific reports, or studies that cannot be reproduced not only serve as a burden on tax-payers' money, but they also serve to diminish public trust in science and its findings. Therefore, there is every need to fortify the validity of data that exists in the science literature, not only to build trust among peers, and to sustain that trust, but to reestablish trust in the public and private academic sectors that are witnessing a veritable battle-ground in the world of science publishing, in some ways spurred by the rapid evolution of the open access (OA) movement. Even though many science journals, traditional and OA, claim to be peer reviewed, the truth is that different levels of peer review occur, and in some cases no, insufficient, or pseudo-peer review takes place. This ultimately leads to the erosion of quality and importance of science, allowing essentially anything to become published, provided that an outlet can be found. In some cases, predatory OA journals serve this purpose, allowing papers to be published, often without any peer review or quality control. In the light of an explosion of such cases in predatory OA publishing, and in severe inefficiencies and possible bias in the peer review of even respectable science journals, as evidenced by the increasing attention given to retractions, there is an urgent need to reform the way in which authors, editors, and publishers conduct the first line of quality control, the peer review. One way to address the problem is through post-publication peer review (PPPR), an efficient complement to traditional peer-review that allows for the continuous improvement and strengthening of the quality of science publishing. PPPR may also serve as a way to renew trust in scientific findings by correcting the literature. This article explores what is broadly being said about PPPR in the literature, so as to establish awareness and a possible first-tier prototype for the sciences for which such a system is undeveloped or weak.