Post-publication review: The role of science news outlets and social media
Keywords:
pre-publication reviews, post-publication reviews, journal-led peer review, community-led peer review, academic misconduct, research integrityAbstract
This article explores the significant role of post-publication review in maintaining research integrity and the potential of science news outlets and social media to improve the process. By examining recent cases, this article reveals the vulnerabilities of pre-publication peer review and suggests a more inclusive approach. The importance of broader public scrutiny is emphasized, as retractions in these cases occurred only after gaining significant attention on social media. The term "peer-review" should be expanded to include various experts and platforms beyond traditional academic journals. The incidents examined in this study underscore the necessity of openness and vigilance in maintaining research integrity, especially in the era of artificial intelligence and digital platforms. Researchers need to understand that research integrity extends beyond journal-led pre-publication reviews. They should also apply their scientific intellect by conducting post-publication reviews.
References
Alami, I. (2024, July). Ilias Alami on X: "Apparently someone copy/pasted 100% of one of my co-authored articles on state capitalism in chatGPT, and published it lol [Online post]. X (Formerly Twitter). https://x.com/IliasAlami/status/1781945469725204740
Aly, M., Colunga, E., Crockett, M. J., Goldrick, M., Gomez, P., Kung, F. Y. H., McKee, P. C., Pérez, M., Stilwell, S. M., & Diekman, A. B. (2023). Changing the culture of peer review for a more inclusive and equitable psychological science. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 152(12), 3546–3565. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001461
Ashwell, D. J. (2014). The challenges of science journalism: The perspectives of scientists, science communication advisors and journalists from New Zealand. Public Underst. Sci., 25(3), 379–393. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662514556144
Barbour, B., & Stell, B. M. (2020). PubPeer: Scientific Assessment Without Metrics. In M. Biagioli & A. Lippman (Eds.), Gaming the Metrics: Misconduct and Manipulation in Academic Research (p. 0). The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11087.003.0015
Besançon, L., Bik, E., Heathers, J., & Meyerowitz-Katz, G. (2022). Correction of scientific literature: Too little, too late! PLoS Biol., 20(3), e3001572. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001572
Besançon, L., Peiffer-Smadja, N., Segalas, C., Jiang, H., Masuzzo, P., Smout, C., Billy, E., Deforet, M., & Leyrat, C. (2021). Open science saves lives: Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Med. Res. Method., 21(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01304-y
Biswas, S., Dobaria, D., & Cohen, H. L. (2023). Focus: Big Data: ChatGPT and the Future of Journal Reviews: A Feasibility. Yale J. Biol. Med., 96(3), 415. https://doi.org/10.59249/SKDH9286
Cabanac, G., Labb?fmmode\acutee\elseé\fi, C., & Magazinov, A. (2021). Tortured phrases: A dubious writing style emerging in science. Evidence of critical issues affecting established journals. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2107.06751
Cabanac, G., Labb?fmmode\acutee\elseé\fi, C., & Magazinov, A. (2022). The “Problematic Paper Screener” automatically selects suspect publications for post-publication (re)assessment. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2210.04895
Conroy, G. (2023). Scientific sleuths spot dishonest ChatGPT use in papers. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-02477-w
Cyranoski, D. (2014). Papers on `stress-induced’ stem cells are retracted—Nature. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2014.15501
Davey, M., Kirchgaessner, S., & Boseley, S. (2020). Surgisphere: Governments and WHO changed Covid-19 policy based on suspect data from tiny US company. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/03/covid-19-surgisphere-who-world-health-organization-hydroxychloroquine
Frank, F., Florens, N., Meyerowitz-katz, G., Barriere, J., Billy, ?fmmode\acuteE\elseÉ\firic, Saada, V., Samuel, A., Robert, J., & Besan?fmmode\mboxç\elseç\fion, L. (2023). Raising concerns on questionable ethics approvals – a case study of 456 trials from the Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire M?fmmode\acutee\elseé\fiditerran?fmmode\acutee\elseé\fie Infection. Res. Integrity Peer Rev., 8(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-023-00134-4
Fraser, N., Brierley, L., Dey, G., Polka, J. K., P?fmmode\acutea\elseá\filfy, M., Nanni, F., & Coates, J. A. (2021). The evolving role of preprints in the dissemination of COVID-19 research and their impact on the science communication landscape. PLoS Biol., 19(4), e3000959. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000959
Frontiers Editorial Office. (2024). Retraction: Cellular functions of spermatogonial stem cells in relation to JAK/STAT signaling pathway. Front. Cell Dev. Biol., 12, 1386861. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcell.2024.1386861
Galbraith, D. W. (2015). Redrawing the frontiers in the age of post-publication review. Front. Genet., 6, 146891. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2015.00198
Góes, C. (2021). Pairwise difference regressions are just weighted averages. Sci. Rep., 11(23044), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-02096-3
Graziotin, D. (2024). A timeline of peer review [Computer software]. https://dgraziotin.shinyapps.io/peerreviewtimeline
Hamilton, D. G., Fraser, H., Hoekstra, R., & Fidler, F. (2020). Meta-Research: Journal policies and editors’ opinions on peer review. eLife. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.62529
Horbach, S. P. J. M. ( S., & Halffman, W. ( W. (2018). The changing forms and expectations of peer review. Res. Integrity Peer Rev., 3(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0051-5
Hunter, J. (2012). Post-Publication Peer Review: Opening Up Scientific Conversation. Front. Comput. Neurosci., 6, 33838. https://doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2012.00063
Irawan, D. E., Zahroh, H., & Puebla, I. (2022). Preprints as a driver of open science: Opportunities for Southeast Asia. Front. Res. Metrics Anal., 7, 992942. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2022.992942
Ivani, S., & Dutilh Novaes, C. (2022). Public engagement and argumentation in science. Euro. Jnl. Phil. Sci., 12(3), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-022-00480-y
Jayashree, B. (2018). Social Media and Communication by Scientists: M.S. Swaminathan on Twitter. Current Sciences, 114(9), 1840–1845. https://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/114/09/1840.pdf
Kovanis, M., Porcher, R., Ravaud, P., & Trinquart, L. (2016). The Global Burden of Journal Peer Review in the Biomedical Literature: Strong Imbalance in the Collective Enterprise. PLoS One, 11(11), e0166387. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0166387
Lach, H. W., Loman, D., & Oerther, S. (2018). Scientific Integrity: Avoiding the Dark Side of Research. West. J. Nurs. Res., 40(11), 1579–1580. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945918793081
Leek, J. T., & Peng, R. D. (2015). Reproducible research can still be wrong: Adopting a prevention approach. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 112(6), 1645–1646. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1421412111
Leheza, Y. (2023). Government, Religion and Fake News. Religion and Policy Journal, 1(2), 54–60. https://doi.org/10.15575/rpj.v1i2.634
Mali?ki, M. (2024). Structure peer review to make it more robust. Nature, 631, 483. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01101-9
McCook, A. (2016, September 26). Yes, “power pose” study is flawed, but shouldn’t be retracted, says one author. Retraction Watch. https://retractionwatch.com/2016/09/26/yes-power-pose-study-is-flawed-but-shouldnt-be-retracted-says-one-author
McEvoy, N. L. (2021). How to compose a good research tweet: Five steps to ensure your tweet reaches a wider audience. Nurs. Crit. Care, 26(S1), 6–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12692
Mehra, M. R., Desai, S. S., Kuy, S., Henry, T. D., & Patel, A. N. (2020). Cardiovascular Disease, Drug Therapy, and Mortality in Covid-19. N. Engl. J. Med. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2007621
Mehra, M. R., Desai, S. S., Ruschitzka, F., & Patel, A. N. (2020). RETRACTED: Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: A multinational registry analysis. Lancet, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31180-6
Meyerowitz-Katz, G., Besan?fmmode\mboxç\elseç\fion, L., Flahault, A., & Wimmer, R. (2021). Impact of mobility reduction on COVID-19 mortality: Absence of evidence might be due to methodological issues. Sci. Rep., 11(23533), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-02461-2
Natawidjaja, D. H., Bachtiar, A., Nurhandoko, B. E. B., Akbar, A., Purajatnika, P., Daryono, M. R., Wardhana, D. D., Subandriyo, A. S., Krisyunianto, A., Tagyuddin, Ontowiryo, B., & Maulana, Y. (2024). RETRACTED: Geo-archaeological prospecting of Gunung Padang buried prehistoric pyramid in West Java, Indonesia. Archaeological Prospection, 31(2), O1-025. https://doi.org/10.1002/arp.1912
Nicholas, D. (2015). The role of social media in the research cycle: Journal: European Science Editing. European Science Editing, 41(4), 91–93. https://europeanscienceediting.eu/articles/the-role-of-social-media-in-the-research-cycle
O’Grady, C. (2024). `Failure at every level’: How science sleuths exposed massive ethics violations at a famed French institute. American Association for the Advancement of Science. https://www.science.org/content/article/failure-every-level-how-science-sleuths-exposed-massive-ethics-violations-famed-french
O’Sullivan, L., Ma, L., & Doran, P. (2021). An Overview of Post-Publication Peer Review. Scholarly Assessment Reports, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.29024/sar.26
Özkent, Y. (2022). Social media usage to share information in communication journals: An analysis of social media activity and article citations. PLoS One, 17(2). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263725
Richter, F. C., Gea-Mallorqu?fmmode\acute?math\elseí\fi, E., Ruffin, N., & Vabret, N. (2023). The Preprint Club—A cross-institutional, community-based approach to peer reviewing. bioRxiv, 2023.01.04.522570. https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.01.04.522570
Ross-Hellauer, T. (2017). What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Research, 6(588), 588. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11369.1
Salonen, M., & Laaksonen, S.-M. (2023). Post-publication gatekeeping practices: Exploring conversational and visual gatekeeping on Finnish newspapers’ Instagram accounts. Nordicom Review, 44(2), 253–278. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2023-0014
Savaris, R. S., Pumi, G., Dalzochio, J., & Kunst, R. (2021). Retraction Note: Stay-at-home policy is a case of exception fallacy: An internet-based ecological study. Sci. Rep., 11(24172), 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-03250-7
Sugimoto, C. R., Work, S., Larivi?fmmode\gravee\elseè\fire, V., & Haustein, S. (2017). Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics: A review of the literature. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol., 68(9), 2037–2062. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23833
Syarif, M. (2024, July). Polemik publikasi ilmiah Kumba Digdowiseiso: Mengapa kasus pelanggaran akademik sering terulang? In Conversation. https://theconversation.com/polemik-publikasi-ilmiah-kumba-digdowiseiso-mengapa-kasus-pelanggaran-akademik-sering-terulang-228622
Tennant, J. P., Dugan, J. M., Graziotin, D., Jacques, D. C., Waldner, F., Mietchen, D., Elkhatib, Y., Collister, L. B., Pikas, C. K., Crick, T., Masuzzo, P., Caravaggi, A., Berg, D. R., Niemeyer, K. E., Ross-Hellauer, T., Mannheimer, S., Rigling, L., Katz, D. S., Tzovaras, B. G., … Colomb, J. (2017). A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review. F1000Research, 6(1151), 1151. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12037.3
Tennant, J. P., & Ross-Hellauer, T. (2020). The limitations to our understanding of peer review. Res. Integrity Peer Rev., 5(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-020-00092-1
Tracz, V., & Lawrence, R. (2016). Towards an open science publishing platform. F1000Research, 5(130), 130. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.7968.1
Zhaksylyk, A., Zimba, O., Yessirkepov, M., & Kocyigit, B. F. (2023). Research Integrity: Where We Are and Where We Are Heading. J. Korean Med. Sci., 38(47). https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2023.38.e405
Zhang, J. (2023). The Impact of New Media on Communication and Engagement in the Digital Age. CHR, 21, 184–190. https://doi.org/10.54254/2753-7064/21/20231470
Aly, M., Colunga, E., Crockett, M. J., Goldrick, M., Gomez, P., Kung, F. Y. H., McKee, P. C., Pérez, M., Stilwell, S. M., & Diekman, A. B. (2023). Changing the culture of peer review for a more inclusive and equitable psychological science. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 152(12), 3546–3565. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001461
Ashwell, D. J. (2014). The challenges of science journalism: The perspectives of scientists, science communication advisors and journalists from New Zealand. Public Underst. Sci., 25(3), 379–393. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662514556144
Barbour, B., & Stell, B. M. (2020). PubPeer: Scientific Assessment Without Metrics. In M. Biagioli & A. Lippman (Eds.), Gaming the Metrics: Misconduct and Manipulation in Academic Research (p. 0). The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11087.003.0015
Besançon, L., Bik, E., Heathers, J., & Meyerowitz-Katz, G. (2022). Correction of scientific literature: Too little, too late! PLoS Biol., 20(3), e3001572. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001572
Besançon, L., Peiffer-Smadja, N., Segalas, C., Jiang, H., Masuzzo, P., Smout, C., Billy, E., Deforet, M., & Leyrat, C. (2021). Open science saves lives: Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Med. Res. Method., 21(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01304-y
Biswas, S., Dobaria, D., & Cohen, H. L. (2023). Focus: Big Data: ChatGPT and the Future of Journal Reviews: A Feasibility. Yale J. Biol. Med., 96(3), 415. https://doi.org/10.59249/SKDH9286
Cabanac, G., Labb?fmmode\acutee\elseé\fi, C., & Magazinov, A. (2021). Tortured phrases: A dubious writing style emerging in science. Evidence of critical issues affecting established journals. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2107.06751
Cabanac, G., Labb?fmmode\acutee\elseé\fi, C., & Magazinov, A. (2022). The “Problematic Paper Screener” automatically selects suspect publications for post-publication (re)assessment. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2210.04895
Conroy, G. (2023). Scientific sleuths spot dishonest ChatGPT use in papers. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-02477-w
Cyranoski, D. (2014). Papers on `stress-induced’ stem cells are retracted—Nature. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2014.15501
Davey, M., Kirchgaessner, S., & Boseley, S. (2020). Surgisphere: Governments and WHO changed Covid-19 policy based on suspect data from tiny US company. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/03/covid-19-surgisphere-who-world-health-organization-hydroxychloroquine
Frank, F., Florens, N., Meyerowitz-katz, G., Barriere, J., Billy, ?fmmode\acuteE\elseÉ\firic, Saada, V., Samuel, A., Robert, J., & Besan?fmmode\mboxç\elseç\fion, L. (2023). Raising concerns on questionable ethics approvals – a case study of 456 trials from the Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire M?fmmode\acutee\elseé\fiditerran?fmmode\acutee\elseé\fie Infection. Res. Integrity Peer Rev., 8(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-023-00134-4
Fraser, N., Brierley, L., Dey, G., Polka, J. K., P?fmmode\acutea\elseá\filfy, M., Nanni, F., & Coates, J. A. (2021). The evolving role of preprints in the dissemination of COVID-19 research and their impact on the science communication landscape. PLoS Biol., 19(4), e3000959. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000959
Frontiers Editorial Office. (2024). Retraction: Cellular functions of spermatogonial stem cells in relation to JAK/STAT signaling pathway. Front. Cell Dev. Biol., 12, 1386861. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcell.2024.1386861
Galbraith, D. W. (2015). Redrawing the frontiers in the age of post-publication review. Front. Genet., 6, 146891. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2015.00198
Góes, C. (2021). Pairwise difference regressions are just weighted averages. Sci. Rep., 11(23044), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-02096-3
Graziotin, D. (2024). A timeline of peer review [Computer software]. https://dgraziotin.shinyapps.io/peerreviewtimeline
Hamilton, D. G., Fraser, H., Hoekstra, R., & Fidler, F. (2020). Meta-Research: Journal policies and editors’ opinions on peer review. eLife. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.62529
Horbach, S. P. J. M. ( S., & Halffman, W. ( W. (2018). The changing forms and expectations of peer review. Res. Integrity Peer Rev., 3(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0051-5
Hunter, J. (2012). Post-Publication Peer Review: Opening Up Scientific Conversation. Front. Comput. Neurosci., 6, 33838. https://doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2012.00063
Irawan, D. E., Zahroh, H., & Puebla, I. (2022). Preprints as a driver of open science: Opportunities for Southeast Asia. Front. Res. Metrics Anal., 7, 992942. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2022.992942
Ivani, S., & Dutilh Novaes, C. (2022). Public engagement and argumentation in science. Euro. Jnl. Phil. Sci., 12(3), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-022-00480-y
Jayashree, B. (2018). Social Media and Communication by Scientists: M.S. Swaminathan on Twitter. Current Sciences, 114(9), 1840–1845. https://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/114/09/1840.pdf
Kovanis, M., Porcher, R., Ravaud, P., & Trinquart, L. (2016). The Global Burden of Journal Peer Review in the Biomedical Literature: Strong Imbalance in the Collective Enterprise. PLoS One, 11(11), e0166387. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0166387
Lach, H. W., Loman, D., & Oerther, S. (2018). Scientific Integrity: Avoiding the Dark Side of Research. West. J. Nurs. Res., 40(11), 1579–1580. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945918793081
Leek, J. T., & Peng, R. D. (2015). Reproducible research can still be wrong: Adopting a prevention approach. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 112(6), 1645–1646. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1421412111
Leheza, Y. (2023). Government, Religion and Fake News. Religion and Policy Journal, 1(2), 54–60. https://doi.org/10.15575/rpj.v1i2.634
Mali?ki, M. (2024). Structure peer review to make it more robust. Nature, 631, 483. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01101-9
McCook, A. (2016, September 26). Yes, “power pose” study is flawed, but shouldn’t be retracted, says one author. Retraction Watch. https://retractionwatch.com/2016/09/26/yes-power-pose-study-is-flawed-but-shouldnt-be-retracted-says-one-author
McEvoy, N. L. (2021). How to compose a good research tweet: Five steps to ensure your tweet reaches a wider audience. Nurs. Crit. Care, 26(S1), 6–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12692
Mehra, M. R., Desai, S. S., Kuy, S., Henry, T. D., & Patel, A. N. (2020). Cardiovascular Disease, Drug Therapy, and Mortality in Covid-19. N. Engl. J. Med. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2007621
Mehra, M. R., Desai, S. S., Ruschitzka, F., & Patel, A. N. (2020). RETRACTED: Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: A multinational registry analysis. Lancet, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31180-6
Meyerowitz-Katz, G., Besan?fmmode\mboxç\elseç\fion, L., Flahault, A., & Wimmer, R. (2021). Impact of mobility reduction on COVID-19 mortality: Absence of evidence might be due to methodological issues. Sci. Rep., 11(23533), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-02461-2
Natawidjaja, D. H., Bachtiar, A., Nurhandoko, B. E. B., Akbar, A., Purajatnika, P., Daryono, M. R., Wardhana, D. D., Subandriyo, A. S., Krisyunianto, A., Tagyuddin, Ontowiryo, B., & Maulana, Y. (2024). RETRACTED: Geo-archaeological prospecting of Gunung Padang buried prehistoric pyramid in West Java, Indonesia. Archaeological Prospection, 31(2), O1-025. https://doi.org/10.1002/arp.1912
Nicholas, D. (2015). The role of social media in the research cycle: Journal: European Science Editing. European Science Editing, 41(4), 91–93. https://europeanscienceediting.eu/articles/the-role-of-social-media-in-the-research-cycle
O’Grady, C. (2024). `Failure at every level’: How science sleuths exposed massive ethics violations at a famed French institute. American Association for the Advancement of Science. https://www.science.org/content/article/failure-every-level-how-science-sleuths-exposed-massive-ethics-violations-famed-french
O’Sullivan, L., Ma, L., & Doran, P. (2021). An Overview of Post-Publication Peer Review. Scholarly Assessment Reports, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.29024/sar.26
Özkent, Y. (2022). Social media usage to share information in communication journals: An analysis of social media activity and article citations. PLoS One, 17(2). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263725
Richter, F. C., Gea-Mallorqu?fmmode\acute?math\elseí\fi, E., Ruffin, N., & Vabret, N. (2023). The Preprint Club—A cross-institutional, community-based approach to peer reviewing. bioRxiv, 2023.01.04.522570. https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.01.04.522570
Ross-Hellauer, T. (2017). What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Research, 6(588), 588. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11369.1
Salonen, M., & Laaksonen, S.-M. (2023). Post-publication gatekeeping practices: Exploring conversational and visual gatekeeping on Finnish newspapers’ Instagram accounts. Nordicom Review, 44(2), 253–278. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2023-0014
Savaris, R. S., Pumi, G., Dalzochio, J., & Kunst, R. (2021). Retraction Note: Stay-at-home policy is a case of exception fallacy: An internet-based ecological study. Sci. Rep., 11(24172), 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-03250-7
Sugimoto, C. R., Work, S., Larivi?fmmode\gravee\elseè\fire, V., & Haustein, S. (2017). Scholarly use of social media and altmetrics: A review of the literature. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol., 68(9), 2037–2062. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23833
Syarif, M. (2024, July). Polemik publikasi ilmiah Kumba Digdowiseiso: Mengapa kasus pelanggaran akademik sering terulang? In Conversation. https://theconversation.com/polemik-publikasi-ilmiah-kumba-digdowiseiso-mengapa-kasus-pelanggaran-akademik-sering-terulang-228622
Tennant, J. P., Dugan, J. M., Graziotin, D., Jacques, D. C., Waldner, F., Mietchen, D., Elkhatib, Y., Collister, L. B., Pikas, C. K., Crick, T., Masuzzo, P., Caravaggi, A., Berg, D. R., Niemeyer, K. E., Ross-Hellauer, T., Mannheimer, S., Rigling, L., Katz, D. S., Tzovaras, B. G., … Colomb, J. (2017). A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review. F1000Research, 6(1151), 1151. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12037.3
Tennant, J. P., & Ross-Hellauer, T. (2020). The limitations to our understanding of peer review. Res. Integrity Peer Rev., 5(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-020-00092-1
Tracz, V., & Lawrence, R. (2016). Towards an open science publishing platform. F1000Research, 5(130), 130. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.7968.1
Zhaksylyk, A., Zimba, O., Yessirkepov, M., & Kocyigit, B. F. (2023). Research Integrity: Where We Are and Where We Are Heading. J. Korean Med. Sci., 38(47). https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2023.38.e405
Zhang, J. (2023). The Impact of New Media on Communication and Engagement in the Digital Age. CHR, 21, 184–190. https://doi.org/10.54254/2753-7064/21/20231470
Posted
2024-07-25 — Updated on 2024-07-26
Versions
- 2024-07-26 (2)
- 2024-07-25 (1)
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Dasapta Erwin Irawan; Olivier Pourret, Lonni Besançon, Sandy Hardian Susanto Herho, Ilham Akhsanu Ridlo, Juneman Abraham
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
