.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
Return
An expert criticism on post-publication peer review platforms: the case of pubpeer
.png){kind=icon}
PRE
AI
DOI：10.1007/s40199-025-00580-z.png)
.png){kind=icon}
Original request for help.png){kind=icon}
Share.png){kind=icon}
Save
Abstract
En 中文
While traditional peer review offers advantages in academic publishing, it is often hampered by significant weaknesses, leading to frustration among many authors. Scientific discoveries after publication depend on thorough discussions and critiques, making post-publication peer review (PPPR) an essential tool for identifying errors and encouraging authors to make necessary corrections. PPPR is defined as a critical, ongoing, and public review conducted by the broader scientific community once research findings are formally published. Its goal is to enable more academic experts to continuously examine, question, and validate the work, identifying potential flaws or strengths that might have been missed during the initial review. This ongoing dialogue promotes transparency and motivates authors to make necessary corrections. Although the goal of PPPR is to enhance scientific integrity, the open nature of PPPR platforms makes them vulnerable to misuse. It can also be exploited to undermine colleagues, suppress differing viewpoints, or further personal or organizational interests. We also observe an increase in “hyper-skepticism,” which differs from constructive criticism, reflecting an overly critical mindset that focuses on doubt rather than fostering understanding. To fully realize the benefits of PPPR and prevent misuse, the scientific community must build a more equitable and more responsible framework. Addressing these challenges requires a thoughtful strategy that integrates technological advancements, strengthens editorial policies, enhances transparency measures, and provides robust protections for good-faith scientific debate. While traditional peer review has its strengths, it also suffers from some weaknesses. PPPR serves to safeguard science and supports the idea of continuous review of scientific knowledge. “Hyper-skepticism” in contrast to constructive criticism, involves overly critical attitudes that focus on doubt rather than understanding. A comprehensive strategy encompassing technological advancements, enhanced editorial policies, increased transparency measures, and robust protections for legitimate scientific discourse is necessary.
Keywords:
Post-publication peer review
Pubpeer
Scientific integrity
Publication ethics
Hyper-ske
pticism
Journal
D
IF:
2.1
Papers:
68
Citations:
0
Organization
View more organizations