Scientific Journals Should Encourage, Not Hinder, Debates About Their Published Papers

Area of Science:

• Scholarly communication
• Scientific publishing
• Research integrity

Background:

• Electronic publishing enables continuous critique of scientific papers.
• Top-tier journals present significant barriers to post-publication critique.
• Previous work proposed rules for journals to encourage post-publication review.

Purpose of the Study:

• To highlight instances where journal editors impede scientific debate.
• To advocate for policies that foster open post-publication review.
• To emphasize the importance of post-publication critique in scientific advancement.

Main Methods:

• Case commentary presenting an instance of editorial hindrance.
• Analysis of barriers in top-ranked journals regarding critique dissemination.
• Review of existing recommendations for encouraging post-publication review.

Main Results:

• A case is presented where editors obstructed discussion between authors and expert readers.
• Established journals maintain policies that limit the cultivation and dissemination of critiques.
• Highlighting such cases can pressure journals to adopt more open policies.

Conclusions:

• Post-publication review is essential for accelerating scientific progress.
• Encouraging debate and critique resolves disagreements and identifies flaws in published work.
• Journals must actively promote post-publication review to foster scientific advancement.