The outcome of the formal peer review<\/a> is typically a rejection or a “revise and re-submit<\/a>.” Depending on the journal, this process can take months, and is understandably the greatest source of frustration for researchers eagerly awaiting an acceptance notice or the option to re-submit elsewhere. The lack of transparency exacerbates the frustration since the degree of review by an unknown number of peers remains undisclosed until a retraction implies that it clearly wasn\u2019t enough.<\/p>\n Pre-publication peer review is primarily a filter to check for accuracy. The decision as to whether the paper is worthy<\/em> of publication ultimately rests with the editor and editorial board, on the assumption that the peer review has screened out any errors or questionable assumptions. Once published, the paper has the opportunity for commentary, but the level of engagement is usually fairly low, partly because the paper is presented as a fait accompli<\/em>, and partly because the lack of interest in publication of replication studies<\/a> of the research conducted in the paper will deny readers the opportunity to further discuss validation of the work.<\/p>\n Journals have little interest in validation of the papers they publish, especially if that validation runs the risk of questioning their internal pre-publication peer review process. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that there has been little interest in post-publication peer review opportunities.<\/p>\n Journals want loyal readers who pay their annual subscription fees in order to access the highly regarded content through the pay wall. Engaging those readers in ongoing communication and discussion about the content that has been published doesn\u2019t appear to interest the journals quite as much.<\/p>\n Leaving post-publication peer review in the hands of Twitter<\/a> and Facebook would open up the serious work of qualified researchers to spammer and trolls. If a published research paper<\/a> garners broad media attention, the opportunity for an objective discourse would be overwhelmed by a \u201ctrial by Twitter,\u201d with anyone and everyone invoking their civil rights of free speech to offer an opinion while providing a link back to their own account or website.<\/p>\n What\u00a0is needed are venues where experienced professionals can engage in a dialogue that contributes positively to the scientific work that has been conducted. Registered accounts would prevent trolling and spamming. Third-party platforms such as PubPeer<\/em> and Open Review<\/em> have taken the opportunity for post-publication peer review<\/a> and presented it in a separate forum away from publisher\u2019s websites. Any paper posted is open for feedback and more detailed review.<\/p>\n Other social forum approaches are also starting to gain attention. For example, the BJOG International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology has been hosting the Blue Journal Club (BlueJC) for the past two years as an online community for women\u2019s health specialists that encourages discourse and post-publication peer review. The platform holds weekly discussions on Twitter<\/a> using the hashtag #BlueJC.<\/p>\nHigher Engagement<\/h2>\n
Lack of Publisher Interest?<\/h2>\n
Social Media is not the Answer<\/h2>\n
![](\"https:\/\/www.enago.com\/academy\/wp-content\/plugins\/pdf-generator-for-wp\/admin\/src\/images\/PDF_Tray.svg\" "\\"Generate")
<\/a>\n\t\t<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"