Problems with Traditional Science Publishing and Finding a Wider Niche for Post-Publication Peer Review

REFERENCES

• Bakker, M., van Dijk, A., and Wicherts, J. M. (2012). The rules of game called psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7:543–554.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balhara, Y. P. S. (2012). Post-publication review: Will it hold its ground? Lung India, 29:94
   Google Scholar
• Bilbrey, E., O’Dell, N., and Creamer, J. (2014). A novel rubric for rating the quality of retraction notices. Publications, 2:14–26.
   Google Scholar
• Bohannon, J. (2013). Who’s afraid of peer review? Science, 342:60–65.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chambers, C. D. (2013). Registered Reports: A new publishing initiative at Cortex. Cortex, 49:609–610.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chase, J. M. (2013). The shadow of bias. PLoS Biology, 11:e1001608.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Editorial. (2005). Revolutionizing peer review? Nature Neuroscience, 8:397.
   Google Scholar
• Eyre-Walker, A. and Stoletski, N. (2013). The assessment of science: The relative merits of post-publication review, the impact factor, and the number of citations. PLoS Biology, 11:e1001675.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fanelli, D. (2010). “Positive” results increase down the hierarchy of the sciences. PLOS One, 5:e10068.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiedler, K., Kutzner, F., and Krueger, J. I. (2012). The long way from α-error control to validity proper: Problems with a short-sighted false-positive debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7:661–669.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Florian, R. V. (2012). Aggregating post-publication peer reviews and ratings. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 6; article 31:1–8.
   Google Scholar
• Ghosh, S. S., Klein, A., Avants, B., and Jarrod Millman, K. (2012). Learning form open source software projects to improve scientific review. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 6; article 18:1–11.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Groves, T. (2010). Is open peer review the fairest system? Yes. British Medical Journal, 341:c6424.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hartshorne, J.K., and Schachtner, A. (2012). Tracking replicability as a method of post-publication open evaluation. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 6; article 8:1–14.
   Google Scholar
• Ho, R.C.-M., Mak, K.-K., Tao, R., Lu, Y.-X., Day, J.-R., and Pan, F. (2013). Views on the peer review system of biomedical journals: An online survey of academics from high-ranking universities. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 13; article 74: 1–15.
   Google Scholar
• Hunter, J. (2012). Post-publication peer review: Opening up scientific conversation. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 6; article 63:1–2.
   Google Scholar
• Ioannidis, J. P. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLOS Medicine, 2:e124.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jefferson, T., Rudin, M., Brodney Folse, S., and Davidoff, F. (2007). Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2: MR000016.
   Google Scholar
• John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., and Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23:524–532.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kapoor, S., Sikka, P., and Saxena, K. K. (2013). Publication of research article: An art or science? Annals of Medical Health Sciences Research, 3:96–98.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Khan, K. (2010). Is open peer review the fairest system? No. BMJ, 341:c6425.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kravitz, D. J. and Baker, C. I. (2011). Toward a new model of scientific publishing: Discussion and a proposal. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 5; article 55:1–12.
   Google Scholar
• Kriegeskorte, N. (2012). Open evaluation: a vision for entirely transparent post-publication peer review and rating for science. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 6, article 79:1–18.
   Google Scholar
• Le Borgne, Y. A. and Campo, A. (2011). Open Review in computer science. Elsevier grand challenge on executable papers. Procedia Computer Science, 4:778–780.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, C. (2012). Open peer reviews by a selected-papers network. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 6; article 1:1–15.
   Google Scholar
• Masicampo, E. J. and Lalande, D. R. (2012). A peculiar prevalence of p values just below .05. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65:2271–2279.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCarty, L. S., Borgert, C. J., and Mihaich, E. M. (2012). Information quality in regulatory decision making: Peer review versus good laboratory practice. Environmental Health Perspectives, 120:927–934.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mesirov, J. (2010). Accessible reproducible research. Science, 327:415.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nielsen, M. (2009). Doing science in the open. Physics World, 22:30–35.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norman, I. and Griffiths, P. (2008). Duplicate publication and “salami slicing”: Ethical issues and practical solutions. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 45:1257–1260.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nosek, B. A., Spies, J. R., and Motyl, M. (2012). Scientific Utopia II: Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7:615–631.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pashler, H. and Wagenmakers, E. J. (2012). Editors’ Introduction to the special section on replicability in psychological science: A crisis of confidence? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7:528–530.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pöschl, U. (2012). Multi-stage open peer review: scientific evaluation integrating the strengths of traditional peer review with the virtues of transparency and self-regulation. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, 6, article 33:1–16.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rennie, D., Flanagin, A., Smith, R., and Smith, J. (2003). Fifth international congress on peer review and biomedical publication: Call for research. Journal of American Medical Association, 289:1438.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Retraction Watch. (2012). South Korean plant compound researcher faked email addresses so he could review his own studies. Available at http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2012/08/24/korean-plant-compound-researcher-faked-email-addresses-so-he-could-review-his-own-studies/. Last accessed June 25, 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Schreider, J., Barrow, C., Birchfield, N., Dearfield, K., Devlin, D., Henry, S., Kramer, M., Schapelle, S., Solomon, K., Weed, D. L., and Embry, M. R. (2010). Enhancing the credibility of decisions based on scientific conclusions: transparency is imperative. Toxicology Science, 116:5–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schroter, S., Tite, L., Hutchings, A., and Black, N. (2006). Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors. Journal of American Medical Association, 295:314–317.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stodden, V. (2009). The legal framework for reproducible scientific research: Licensing and copyright. Computing in Science and Engineering, 11:35–40.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2011a). Who owns science, owns society. Maejo International Journal of Science and Technology, 5:S1–S10.
   Google Scholar
• Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2011b). The ethics of collaborative authorship. EMBO Reports, 12:889–893.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2013a). Responsibilities and rights of authors, peer reviewers, editors and publishers: A status quo inquiry and assessment. The Asian and Australasian Journal of Plant Science and Biotechnology, 7:6–15.
   Google Scholar
• Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2013b). The need for post-publication peer review in plant science publishing. Frontiers in Plant Science, 4: Article 485.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2013c). The Global Science Factor v. 1.1: A new system for measuring and quantifying quality in science. The Asian and Australasian Journal of Plant Science and Biotechnology, 7:92–101.
   Google Scholar
• Teixeira da Silva, J. A. and Dobránszki, J. (2013). How not to publish an Open Access journal: A case study. The Asian and Australasian Journal of Plant Science and Biotechnology, 7:102–110.
   Google Scholar
• Teixeira da Silva, J. A., Dobránszki, J., Van, P. T., and Payne, W. A. (2013). Corresponding authors: Rules, responsibilities and risks. The Asian and Australasian Journal of Plant Science and Biotechnology, 7:16–20.
   Google Scholar
• Thornton, A. and Lee, P. (2000). Publication bias in meta-analysis: Its causes and consequences. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 53:207–216.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tolo, V. T. (2014). Peer review has no peer. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 96:1.
   Google Scholar
• Tressoldi, P. E. (2012). Replication unreliability in psychology: Elusive phenomena or “elusive” statistical power? Frontiers in Psychology, 3:218.
   Google Scholar
• Vandewalle, P., Kovacevic, J., and Vetterli, M. (2009). Reproducible research in signal processing. Signal Processing Magazine IEEE, 26:37–47.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagenmakers, E. J. (2007). A practical solution to the pervasive problems of p values. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14:779–804.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Youssef, M. A. M. (2012). Peer review of manuscripts submitted to medical journals. Middle East Fertility Society Journal, 17:139–143.
   Google Scholar