This panel discussion, hosted by COPE Council member, Kim Eggleton, featured four speakers who are experts in promoting post-publication critiques.
The panel discussion was part of COPE's Publication Integrity Week 2023.
The panel
Elizabeth Loder is Head of Research at the BMJ, where a system of ‘rapid response’ critiques from readers has been in place for some time. Boris Barbour is the co-founder of PubPeer, a not-for-profit website which allows readers and authors to comment on scholarly publications. Nick Wise is a researcher in fluid dynamics and an integrity ‘sleuth’ whose work has resulted in over 900 retractions. Peter Doshi is an associate professor of pharmaceutical health services research and leads the Restoring Invisible and Abandoned Trials (RIAT) initiative which aims to ensure that clinical trial publications are accurate, complete, and with data publicly available.
Valid post-publication critiques
The panellists agree that anything that would be of interest to readers constitutes a valid post-publication critique, provided it is well reasoned and backed up with evidence. In most cases authors are invited to respond to the critique and in some cases their responses satisfy the concern raised. Authors do not always take up the opportunity to respond to comments on PubPeer and in some cases responses might originate with paper mills.
Changes in post-publication critiques
There have been several changes in post-publication critiques in recent years. The opportunities to comment via social media have grown enormously, and the panellists agreed that it would be impossible to monitor all content in this form. With so many new ways to comment some of the older conventions on time limits to raise concerns have disappeared, and the opportunity to make responses within a timely window has grown. Readers should not censor themselves where they suspect that there are problems with a publication no matter how long ago it was made available.
Editors and readers are now more prepared to engage with concerns and this has been aided by the emergence of respected ‘sleuths’ and commenting sites like PubPeer. It would be beneficial for universities and funders to place greater emphasis on data sharing which would in turn encourage more careful work and accountability. Good research should produce data in a form which is ready to share and sites such as OSF and Zenodo provide this without charge. Some journals have moved towards mandating data sharing for certain article types (if possible under confidentiality agreements); at the BMJ all authors must submit a declaration stating whether they will share data if required. These moves are harder to replicate at smaller journals who may have smaller resources, and at journals which publish lower quality outputs. More awareness raising is needed to overcome fears about the risks of making data available. Universities and research institutions should make it easier for journals and sleuths to contact them, and be more responsive to concerns about publications by their staff.
Greater responsiveness to post-publication critiques required
In summary, the panellists agreed on the need for post-publication critique to be taken seriously and for there to be more public discussion of concerns with the published record. Joint action and greater responsiveness from institutions and funders would be of great benefit and there is space for a third party like COPE to facilitate this.
Further reading
- Enhancing Partnerships of Institutions and Journals to Address Concerns About Research Misconduct JAMA Network
Related COPE resources
- Handling post-publication critiques COPE flowchart
- Addressing ethics complaints from people who submit multiple issues COPE discussion document
- Login to your account or register
to post comments