Arguably, the publishing process is necessarily slow because work must make it's way through a rigorous peer review system. This would probably be okay if such a system were in fact effective. However, research on the effectiveness of peer review shows that most major errors go unnoticed by
reviewers reviewers class="ltx_cite" data-bib-text="@article{Schroter_2008,
doi = {10.1258/jrsm.2008.080062},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.2008.080062},
year = 2008,
...
title = {What errors do peer reviewers detect,
and does training improve their ability to detect them?},
journal = {{JRSM}}
}" data-bib-key="Schroter_2008" contenteditable="false">
Schroter 2008,
2008, class="ltx_cite" data-bib-text="@article{Godlee_1998,
doi = {10.1001/jama.280.3.237},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.3.237},
year = 1998,
...
author = {Fiona Godlee and Catharine R. Gale and Christopher N. Martyn},
title = {Effect on the Quality of Peer Review of Blinding Reviewers and Asking Them to Sign Their Reports},
journal = {{JAMA}}
}" data-bib-key="Godlee_1998" contenteditable="false">
Godlee 1998,
1998, class="ltx_cite" data-bib-text="@article{Baxt_1998,
doi = {10.1016/s0196-0644(98)70006-x},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0196-0644(98)70006-x},
year = 1998,
...
author = {Richard Smith},
title = {Classical peer review: an empty gun},
journal = {Breast Cancer Research}
}" data-bib-key="Smith_2010" contenteditable="false">
Smith 2010.
So-called "stings" have shown that:
computer that:
computer generated papers can pass peer
review review class="ltx_cite" data-bib-text="@article{Labb__2012,
doi = {10.1007/s11192-012-0781-y},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0781-y},
year = 2012,
...
author = {Cyril Labb{\'{e}} and Dominique Labb{\'{e}}},
title = {Duplicate and fake publications in the scientific literature: how many {SCIgen} papers in computer science?},
journal = {Scientometrics}
}" data-bib-key="Labb__2012" contenteditable="false">
Labbé 2012made up work can pass peer review
class="ltx_cite" data-bib-text="@article{Bohannon_2013,
doi = {10.1126/science.342.6154.60},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.342.6154.60},
year = 2013,
...
author = {J. Bohannon},
title = {Who{\textquotesingle}s Afraid of Peer Review?},
journal = {Science}
}" data-bib-key="Bohannon_2013" contenteditable="false">
Bohannon 2013and that peer review can turn out to reject studies already published in the journals that previously accepted the same
work work class="ltx_cite" data-bib-text="@article{Peters_1982,
doi = {10.1017/s0140525x00011183},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00011183},
year = 1982,
...
title = {Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles,
submitted again},
journal = {Behavioral and Brain Sciences}
}" data-bib-key="Peters_1982" contenteditable="false">
Peters 1982,
1982, class="ltx_cite" data-bib-text="@article{Ceci_2014,
doi = {10.15200/winn.140076.68759},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.15200/winn.140076.68759},
year = 2014,
...
author = {Stephen Ceci and Douglas Peters},
title = {The Peters {\&} Ceci Study of Journal Publications},
journal = {The Winnower}
}" data-bib-key="Ceci_2014" contenteditable="false">
Ceci 2014.
That 2014.
That is not to say that peer review is not without benefits, just that it it is not stopping major errors from being published. An
alternative, which we favor, is alternative is to post/publish/preprint work without
review (hint hint: authorea.com) and review--hint: Authorea--and then coordinate review post-publication through traditional routes or through open post-publication peer review
platforms (F1000Research, The Winnower). platforms--such as F1000Research and The Winnower. Such a process affords seamless communication amongst scientists without unnecessary delay, eliminates editorial bias, and makes the entire process transparent. In short, it makes the most sense.
Disagree?
Disagree? Leave an annotation anywhere on this document or write up a counterpoint. We believe in open communication, making it more fluid and collaborative and we hope you'll join us.
Write your next paper today on Authorea. Send it wherever you'd like. #openscience
