Post-publication peer review: Research integrity beyond publication

Is publication really the final chapter in a research paper’s journey? Not quite. In many ways, it’s just the beginning of a new phase—post-publication peer review (PPPR). This is when the wider research community jumps in, sparking discussion and adding another layer of scrutiny. While traditional peer review is still the gold standard, PPPR is gaining recognition for good reasons. For starters, it usually offers quicker feedback. It’s often open and public too, which means more researchers from a diverse pool can weigh in. That’s a big plus, especially given the common complaints about traditional peer review being slow and lacking diversity in its reviewer pool. Whether it’s Letters to the Editor, social media threads, or platforms like PubPeer and F1000 Research, PPPR has become a valuable part of the research conversation. These channels have even helped uncover flaws in published work in the past. And in a time when misinformation is rampant and public trust in science is under pressure, increased transparency, even after publication, is more important than ever. 

1. Complementing traditional peer review 

Unlike traditional peer review, PPPR allows for an ongoing assessment of the published work by a broader range of experts, identifying flaws, errors, or potential integrity concerns that may have been overlooked during the initial review, which usually involves just a handful of experts. PPPR can also encourage interdisciplinary conversation, with the diverse perspectives of researchers from across fields adding more value and helping strengthen the research. This ongoing feedback doesn’t just boost credibility—it also encourages a more collaborative and open research culture. 

2. Encouraging a culture of transparency and accountability 

PPPR offers a way to promote transparency in a publishing system which is seen as being closed. By encouraging open discussions and corrections, PPPR allows for ongoing scrutiny and assessment of published research and enhances the credibility of the journal content. Moreover, if combined with other elements like preprints and the disclosure of reviewer reports, PPPR has the potential to become more impactful and add transparency at multiple stages. This approach can not only enhance accountability among researchers and publishers but also build trust among readers, enhancing the standing of the journal within the academic community. 

3. Helping publishers maintain the accuracy of the scientific record 

By facilitating ongoing and dynamic evaluations of research long after its publication, open discussions, like those enabled by PPPR, can help journals in determining the need to issue errata, corrections, or retractions, to ensure the accuracy of their record. Publishers can also leverage insights from PPPR cases to reinforce safeguards set to prevent misconduct in the future, upholding journal credibility. Furthermore, PPPR platforms can create dynamic spaces for researchers and publishers to refine findings and address concerns in a collaborative way and improve author-publisher relationships, keeping authors and the community at the center of research communication and dissemination. 

Opening up space for post-publication commentary can go a long way in building public trust. It helps make editorial updates more transparent and efficient, supports safe whistleblowing, and encourages better use of evidence synthesis. It also creates room for good faith collaboration—something that really matters when time is critical, like we saw during the COVID-19 pandemic. But while this kind of system has real benefits, it’s not without its hurdles. Let’s take a look at some of the challenges that come with PPPR. 

1. Low engagement 

One of the main challenges PPPR faces is low engagement, with a limited number of researchers or reviewers providing feedback after publication. Scientists often juggle demanding workloads, and they may not be very motivated to engage in PPPR, especially when their feedback goes unrecognized or unaddressed. When participation is limited, it can undermine the effectiveness of PPPR in enhancing research quality. To encourage participation, publishers can simplify the review process, making it easier for researchers to participate and incentivize the process by recognizing reviewers for their contributions. For example, on ScienceOpen, reviewer contributions are recognized by assigning a DOl upon publication, and since reviewers are linked through their ORCID, this creates a verifiable record of their peer review activities. 

2. Fragmented reviews and lack of standardization 

Another challenge is the fragmentation of PPPR discussions across various platforms, with some comments even being missed. Additionally, the informal nature of some platforms can lead to inconsistent review quality. These issues often arise from the lack of comprehensiveness and interoperability, causing different platforms to provide varied types of commentary on articles—some even discussing the same work without a more standardized method for accessing this information. Publishers can play a crucial role in creating a more cohesive and organized system. For example, ScienceOpen has collaborated with prominent organizations like Crossref and ORCID to ensure that PPPR on its platform works seamlessly and without conflicts. 

3. Potential for misuse of the review process 

Despite well-intentioned researchers looking for and providing valuable feedback, the PPPR process is susceptible to trolling, which can lead to confrontations in public forums. As a counter to this negative element, having a system with accountability as its core feature could help reduce harsh comments and offer a more inclusive environment for research participation. Anonymity is another factor to consider. While anonymity may encourage spamming or unprofessional comments, removing anonymity might deter some researchers, particularly those in junior roles, from openly critiquing the work of their more senior counterparts for fear of potential repercussions. So, the question of whether open or anonymous PPPR is more effective remains, and different platforms may have different approaches. PubPeer, for example, gives users the option to comment anonymously or with their real names. While ScienceOpen takes a stricter route, requiring commenters to verify their identity through an ORCID profile. Users must have at least one publication to leave a comment, and five to post full reviews or ratings. 

The strain on the publishing system, combined with the growing complexity of fraudulent research practices, has revealed the cracks in the current state of peer review. The question remains—how can we reimagine peer review to meet the demands of modern science without losing its rigor? To navigate the changing landscape of scholarly publishing, which has its own distinct challenges, the academic community may need to embrace and explore innovative review models. PPPR offers an approach that not only enhances research integrity but also bolsters accountability and transparency, enables community involvement, and speeds up the publication process. PPPR practices could also create a more resilient system and foster greater collaboration within the research community.