The past few years have seen the rise of anonymous sites dedicated to post-publication peer review and critiques. One of the most aggressive, Science-Fraud.org, for example, identified a number of papers that were corrected and retracted, but was
shut down following legal threats. But there have been other entrants, such as
PubMed Commons and
PubPeer. The latter, which allows anonymous comments because junior scientists may fear reprisals, led to the correction of
a high-profile stem cell cloning paper in Cell, among others. Some are even arguing for all of peer review to take place after an article is posted, saying that increased specialization by researchers, and an avalanche of studies published every week, means traditional peer review is less likely to be effective. We’ll look at these issues, including best practices (subtitle: how to avoid lawsuits), how to foster constructive criticism, and how anonymity and blogging fit into the mix.
