A new Post-Publication Peer Review (PPPR) system

 

Japanese academics suggest a new PPPR system, see paper below: 

"In this paper, we proposed a new PPPR system that might solve the problem of unpopularity that other PPPRs are currently facing. We speculate that the biggest cause of the problem is the lack of strong incentives among potential commenters. We looked at the open peer commentary section of BBS as a reference, and implemented its features in the current web-based, open research environment. As in some other existing PPPR systems, target articles will be taken from any academic media including preprints, and are reviewed by the unlimited number of commentaries. It critically differs from others, however, regarding that the review commentaries will be qualified, if minimally, by journal editors, and published in a section specifically dedicated to PPPR" https://psyarxiv.com/sp3j5

It's not a coincidence that on June 24, 2018, I sent an email to several thousand colleagues mentioning PPPR. You can find the details below. Regardless, I've actively contributed by conducting over a hundred Post Publication Peer Reviews (PPPRs) through the Publons platform. Check out nine examples of my PPPRs in the links provided below::

- Stagnation and Scientific Incentives

- Can your paper evade the editor’s axe?

- Germany´s secret to scientific excellence

- Two hierarchies in science: the free flow of ideas and the academy

- Do zombie scientists and zombie editors exhibit hubris, or blind courage?

- Strategic competences for concrete action towards sustainability: An oxymoron?

- The transformation of the academic publishing market: multiple perspectives on innovation

- Past performance does not guarantee future results: lessons from the evaluation of research units in Portugal

- Technological research in the EU is less efficient than the world average. EU research policy risks Europeans' future

_______________________________________________________________________
De: F. Pacheco Torgal
Enviado: 24 de Junho de 2018 7:33
Assunto: Stop the publication machine: Start the post-publication peer review machine

"…science has become stifled by a publication deluge destabilizing the balance between production and consumption....an increasing focus on production over consumption also means that researchers will spend...less time reading and digesting the literature in the first place” https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157717303139

Above link for a study by researchers of Aalto University, University of California, Politecnico di Milano and Indiana University published on the Journal of Informetrics online 3 days ago. The last co-author is Professor Fortunato, Director of the Center for ComplexNetworks and Systems Research at Indiana University 

The title could also be “Stop the publication machine. Start the post-publication peer review machine” just because Academia should aim for a balance between production, prepublication peer review, and post-publication peer review. As Civil Engineering Full Professor Marc Edwards has written production obsession is responsible for the explosion of research misconduct: “Academic Research in the 21st Century: MaintainingScientific Integrity in a Climate of Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition”

This position was already backed by many including by Stanford University academics:

“Modelling science trustworthiness under publish or perish pressure”

“Assessing scientists for hiring, promotion, and tenure”