Abstract
Irregularities in data/results of scientific research might be spotted pre-publication by co-workers and reviewers, or post-publication by readers typically with vested interest. The latter might consist of fellow researchers in the same subject area who would naturally pay closer attention to a published paper. However, it is increasingly apparent that there are readers who interrogate papers in detail with a primary intention to identify potential problems with the work. Here, we consider post-publication peer review (PPPR) by individuals, or groups of individuals, who perform PPPRs with a perceptible intention to actively identify irregularities in published data/results and to expose potential research fraud or misconduct, or intentional misconduct exposing (IME)-PPPR. On one hand, such activities, when done anonymously or pseudonymously with no formal discourse, have been deemed as lacking in accountability, or perceived to incur some degree of maleficence, and have been labelled as vigilantism. On the other, these voluntary works have unravelled many instances of research misconduct and have helped to correct the literature. We explore the tangible benefits of IME-PPPR in detecting errors in published papers and from the perspectives of moral permissibility, research ethics, and the sociological perspective of science. We posit that the benefits of IME-PPPR activities that uncover clear evidence of misconduct, even when performed anonymously or pseudonymously, outweigh their perceived deficiencies. These activities contribute to a vigilant research culture that manifests the self-correcting nature of science, and are in line with the Mertonian norms of scientific ethos.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Pre-prints hosted by online servers are in a sense available for public viewing, and some may consider these publications that could also be subjected to PPPR. We shall adhere to the notion that pre-prints are not yet bona fide publications as they have not been peer-reviewed. Pre-print servers also do not have the same status as journals as the former neither host nor facilitate subsequent peer review. There are, however, journals with a coupled pre-print publishing and open peer-review model, such as Biogeosciences’ interactive review process (https://www.biogeosciences.net/).
It should be clarified that such an intention to expose fraud or misconduct in research or publications may or may not be the original (or sole) intention of the authors or commenters. However, as a direct consequence of their writings is the revelation of fraud and misconduct, there is perceptible intent.
The work of Matthew Schrag has brought to light some serious issues with papers in the field of Alzheimer’s disease research, including possibly manipulated scientific images and suspect numerical data in a number of papers by Cassava Sciences-linked researchers and papers associated with Aβ*56 (Piller, 2022). Although Schrag has yet to publish either of his analyses in his own name, his work definitely required subject expertise as a neurologist. Likewise, Ben Willem Moland and colleagues have recently posted a preprint on “An investigation of 51 publications by a single author due to doubts about data integrity” (https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1539633/v1) which has not yet been peer reviewed.
Some individuals may perform activities across categories. For example, Nicholas Brown has performed category 2 activities such as blogs and commenting on PubPeer, but has also category 3 activities in authoring peer reviewed articles on potentially fraudulent papers.
It should be clarified that for the Lönnstedt case, the whistleblowers Jutfeld and Sundin did have insider information as they were also at Ar Research Station on the island of Gotland where Lönnstedt has conducted her research associated with the retracted paper.
Misconduct sleuths such as Elisabeth Bik (https://www-science-org.libproxy1.nus.edu.sg/content/article/single-paper-mill-appears-have-churned-out-400-papers-sleuths-find), Brian Perron and colleagues (https://retractionwatch.com/2021/12/20/revealed-the-inner-workings-of-a-paper-mill/) and others have been instrumental in exposing fraudulent papers from paper mills.
Obviously, transparency and accountability would not be an issue with post-publication peer reviewers who identify themselves in posting and commentaries. Many but not all PubPeer comments are anonymous or pseudonymous. Elisabeth Bik and Nicholas Brown, for example, use their real names in their PubPeer comments.
The same cannot be said for PPPRs like a PubPeer commentary, which has no DOI, nor is it indexed by any knowledge database.
References
Bimler, D. (2022). Better living through coordination chemistry: A descriptive study of a prolific papermill that combines crystallography and medicine. Retrieved December 2022, from https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1537438/v1.
Blatt, M. R. (2015). Vigilante science. Plant Physiology, 169(2), 907–909. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.15.01443
Cabanac, G., & Labbé, C. (2021). Prevalence of nonsensical algorithmically generated papers in the scientific literature. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24495
Cabanac, G., Labbé, C., & Magazinov, A. (2021). Tortured phrases: A dubious writing style emerging in science. Evidence of critical issues affecting established journals. Retrieved December 2022, from https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.06751.
Cyranoski, D. (2014). Stem-cell scientist found guilty of misconduct. Retrieved December 2022, from https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2014.14974.
Editorial. (2006). Can peer review police fraud? Nature Neuroscience, 9(2), 149. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn0206-149
Else, H. (2021). ‘Tortured phrases’ give away fabricated research papers. Retrieved December 2022, from https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02134-0.
Enserink, M. (2021). Sea of doubts. Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abj3100
Enserink, M. (2022). Star marine ecologist committed misconduct, university says. Retrieved December 2022, from https://www-science-org.libproxy1.nus.edu.sg/content/article/star-marine-ecologist-committed-misconduct-university-says.
Gopalakrishna, G., Ter Riet, G., Vink, G., Stoop, I., Wicherts, J. M., & Bouter, L. M. (2022). Prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential explanatory factors: A survey among academic researchers in The Netherlands. PLoS ONE, 17(2), e0263023. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263023
Gøtzsche, P. (2022). Anonymous authorship may reduce prescription drug deaths. Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, 7(3), 189.
Hardwicke, T. E., Thibault, R. T., Kosie, J. E., Tzavella, L., Bendixen, T., Handcock, S. A., Köneke, V. E., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2022). Post-publication critique at top-ranked journals across scientific disciplines: A cross-sectional assessment of policies and practice. Royal Society Open Science, 9(8), 220139. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.220139
Healy, D. (2022). Whistleblowing without names is hearsay. Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, 7(3), 194.
Heesen, R., & Bright, L. (2021). Is peer review a good idea? The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 72(3), 635–663.
Hunter, J. (2012). Post-publication peer review: Opening up scientific conversation. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2012.00063
ICMJE (2022). Defining the role of authors and contributors. Retrieved from https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html.
Jefferson, T., Alderson, P., Wager, E., & Davidoff, F. (2002). Effects of editorial peer review: A systematic review. JAMA, 287(21), 2784–2786. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.287.21.2784
Kelly, J., Sadeghieh, T., & Adeli, K. (2014). Peer review in scientific publications: Benefits, critiques, & a survival guide. Electronic Journal of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, 25(3), 227–243.
Kennedy, D. (2002). Next steps in the Schön affair. Science, 298(5593), 495. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.298.5593.495
Kupferschmidt, K. (2018). Researcher at the center of an epic fraud remains an enigma to those who exposed him. Retrieved December 2022, from https://www.science.org/content/article/researcher-center-epic-fraud-remains-enigma-those-who-exposed-him.
Lee, S. M. (2018). Here’s how Cornell scientist Brian Wansink turned shoddy data into viral studies about how we eat. Retrieved December 2022, from https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/brian-wansink-cornell-p-hacking#.bmxLG1XPpN.
Levi, B. (2002). Bell Labs convenes committee to investigate questions of scientific misconduct. Retrieved December 2022, from https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1506737.
Malek, J. (2010). To tell or not to tell? The ethical dilemma of the would-be whistleblower. Accountability in Research, 17(3), 115–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621003791929
Mallapaty, S. (2020). China’s research-misconduct rules target “paper mills” that churn out fake studies. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-02445-8
Markie, M. (2015). Post-publication peer review, in all its guises, is here to stay. Insights, 28(2), 107–110. https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.245
Merton, R. (Ed.). (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. University of Chicago Press.
O’Sullivan, L., Ma, L., & Doran, P. (2021). An overview of post-publication peer review. Scholarly Assessment Reports, 3(1), 1–11.
Oransky, I. (2018). Meet the scientific sleuths: More than two dozen who’ve had an impact on the scientific literature. Retrieved December 2022, from https://retractionwatch.com/2018/06/17/meet-the-scientific-sleuths-ten-whove-had-an-impact-on-the-scientific-literature/.
Ortega, J. (2021). Classification and analysis of PubPeer comments: How a web journal club is used. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24568
Piller, C. (2022). Failing the test. Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.ada0762
Power, J. (2018). For Watchdog scientists, using software to fight dubious cancer research. Retrieved December 2022, from https://undark.org/2018/04/02/software-byrne-cancer-research-fraud/.
Redman, B., & Caplan, A. (2015). No one likes a snitch. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21(4), 813–819. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9570-8
Resnik, D. B., Neal, T., Raymond, A., & Kissling, G. E. (2015). Research misconduct definitions adopted by U.S. research institutions. Accountability in Research, 22(1), 14–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2014.891943
Resnik, D. B., & Shamoo, A. E. (2011). The Singapore statement on research integrity. Accountability in Research, 18(2), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2011.557296
Satalkar, P., & Shaw, D. (2018). Is failure to raise concerns about misconduct a breach of integrity? Researchers’ reflections on reporting misconduct. Accountability in Research, 25(6), 311–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2018.1493577
Saunders, R., & Savulescu, J. (2008). Research ethics and lessons from Hwanggate: What can we learn from the Korean cloning fraud? Journal of Medical Ethics, 34(3), 214–221. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2007.023721
Shen, H. (2020). Meet this super-spotter of duplicated images in science papers. Nature, 581(7807), 132–136. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-01363-z
Smith, R. (2006). Peer review: A flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99(4), 178–182. https://doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.99.4.178
Sundin, J., & Jutfelt, F. (2018). Keeping science honest. Science, 359(6383), 1443. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat3473
Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2017). Are pseudonyms ethical in (science) publishing? Neuroskeptic as a case study. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23(6), 1807–1810. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9825-7
Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2021). Should anonymous and pseudonymous entities be cited or acknowledged? Journal of Professional Nursing, 37(6), 1207–1209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2021.08.014
The Center for Scientific Integrity (2018). 'The Retraction Watch Database [Internet]. Retrieved December 2022, from http://retractiondatabase.org/RetractionSearch.aspx?
Van Noorden, R. (2014). Publishers withdraw more than 120 gibberish papers. Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2014.14763.
Van Noorden, R. (2021). Hundreds of gibberish papers still lurk in the scientific literature. Nature, 594(7862), 160–161. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-01436-7
Xie, Y., Wang, K., & Kong, Y. (2021). Prevalence of research misconduct and questionable research practices: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Science and Engineering Ethics, 27(4), 41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00314-9
Yeo-Teh, N., & Tang, B. (2022). Sustained rise in retractions in the life sciences literature during the pandemic years 2020 and 2021. Publications, 10(3), 29. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications10030029
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to all reviewers for their insightful and constructive comments, which improved the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Yeo-Teh, N.S.L., Tang, B.L. Post-publication Peer Review with an Intention to Uncover Data/Result Irregularities and Potential Research Misconduct in Scientific Research: Vigilantism or Volunteerism?. Sci Eng Ethics 29, 24 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-023-00447-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-023-00447-z