|Year : 2016 | Volume
| Issue : 2 | Page : 29-30
Post-publication peer review: A fresh perspective on dentistry publications
Jafar Kolahi1, Saber Khazaei2
1 Founder and Managing Editor of Dental Hypotheses, Torabinejad Dental Research Center, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
2 Department of Endodontics, Torabinejad Dental Research Center, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
|Date of Web Publication||9-Jun-2016|
Torabinejad Dental Research Center, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
|How to cite this article:|
Kolahi J, Khazaei S. Post-publication peer review: A fresh perspective on dentistry publications. Dent Hypotheses 2016;7:29-30
New emerging Internet-based technologies have opened up new perspectives in the research community. One of these new concepts is post-publication peer review (PPPR). The advantages and limitations of pre-publication peer review are well-known and have been widely discussed in the literature. ,, PPPR is a relatively new concept, particularly in the field of dentistry. In 2007, Todd Gibson recommended that PPPR could be useful.  Yet, a search of dental journals in "PubMed" via the query "post-publication peer review and (jsubsetd[text])" on May 6, 2016 showed no results. In the present editorial, we introduce the concept of PPPR of a published article in a peer reviewed journal [Figure 1].
|Figure 1: Schematic of PPPR of an article published in a peer reviewed journal. PPPRs are not invited by the journal|
Click here to view
Nevertheless, to discuss about importance of PPPR let's start with a well-known example. In January 2014, two papers were published in "Nature" about stimulus-triggered acquisition of pluripotency (STAP). , These papers described a revolutionary way of making pluripotent embryonic-like stem cells from adult body cells using stress, e.g., acidic conditions or physical pressure. Shortly after publication of the theses papers critical PPPR began to arise on "PubPeer" by researchers, both known and anonymous, citing problems with data in this research. Consequently, according to "Nature" news: "The lead author was found guilty of misconduct, the papers were retracted and the RIKEN center, where she worked, was restructured. The aftermath of the episode has been felt by scientists across Japan, in the form of new anti-misconduct policies." 
Clearly, the publication of research findings in a peer reviewed journal does not end the discussion of the research finding but that a critical analysis through PPPR must be considered as part of the publication process by scientists, editors, publishers, and research institutes. PPPR must now be included as a fast and influential tool to find and correct errors, flawed data, and malfeasance of published research findings.
With respect to the fact that PPPR is in its nascent phase for the dental science community, we offer below some resources for PPPR:
Readers should note that F1000Prime is sometimes considered as a source of PPPR.  This site focuses on recommendations only, as a service to highlight important biology and medical articles, whereas the other resources focus more on criticism and debate. In F1000Prime, 5,000 faculty senior scientists and leading experts select the most important articles, rating them and providing short explanations for their selections. Comments on F1000Primeare are analyzed by "Altmetric." 
- PubPeer: This online journal club is one of the most well-known and widely used PPPR resources allowing anonymous researchers to comment on any article with a digital object identifier (DOI), PubMed identifier number (PMID), or those published as preprints in arXiv. "PubPeer" automatically alerts the corresponding author of new comments on their paper and anyone can set up email alerts on a paper they find interesting. The journal club states that "PubPeer provides a centralized and easily searchable database that contains comments on all published articles." Of more interest, the "PubPeer" browser extensions could be used to add links to "PubPeer" comments directly on the journal websites and PubMed. Comments on "PubPeer" are analyzed by Altmetric (www.altmetric.com).  "PubPeer" is open to all sciences, not just biomedical sciences.
- PubMed Commons: All authors of a published paper in "PubMed" are authorized to comment on any other article in the database but here they cannot be anonymous. "PubMed Commons" does not provide its members with access to the full text papers.
- Open Review: This is a new service from the Research Gate. "Open Review" encourages research scientists to focus on one key question: Is this research finding reproducible? It asks reviewer to provide open feedback on the publication's methodology, analyses, references, findings, or conclusions; differentiating it from the simple commenting systems of "PubPeer" and "PubMed Commons." This service provides an anonymity option.
- Publons: For pre- or post-publication peer reviewers, "Publons" provides a way to get credit for contributions (without breaking reviewer anonymity) in a format they can be included in the promotion and funding of applications. "Publons" encourages researchers to write post-publication reviews as a way to show expertise and to bring this expertise to the attention of editors. "Publons" also allows researchers to start a discussion about a piece of research rather than to write formal review. Comments on "Publons" are analyzed by Altmetric. 
- Retraction Watch: This is a blog that reports on retractions of research papers. Retractions of papers usually are not announced, and the reasons for retractions are not revealed.  The aim of "Retraction Watch" is to increase the transparency of the retraction process, and consequently other researchers or the public who are unconscious of the retraction may not make assessments based on a worthless research paper.
| References|| |
Smith R. Peer review: A flawed process at the heart of science and journals. J R Soc Med 2006;99:178-82.
Steinhauser G, Adlassnig W, Risch JA, Anderlini S, Arguriou P, Armendariz AZ, et al.
Peer review versus editorial review and their role in innovative science. Theor Med Bioeth 2012;33: 359-76.
Gibson TA. Post-publication review could aid skills and quality. Nature 2007;448:408.
Obokata H, Wakayama T, Sasai Y, Kojima K, Vacanti MP, Niwa H, et al.
Stimulus-triggered fate conversion of somatic cells into pluripotency. Nature 2014;505:641-7.
Obokata H, Sasai Y, Niwa H, Kadota M, Andrabi M, Takata N, et al.
Bidirectional developmental potential in reprogrammed cells with acquired pluripotency. Nature 2014;505:676-80.
Kolahi J. Altmetrics: A new emerging issue for dental research scientists. Dent Hypotheses 2015;6:1-2.