Scientific Peer Review Is Broken. We're Fighting to Fix It With Anonymity

1/8/2015

This article discusses the importance of anonymity in scientific research and the role of PubPeer, an online platform that allows researchers to provide anonymous feedback on published papers. It highlights the benefits of anonymous peer review, such as enabling honest and unbiased criticism, and protecting early-career scientists from potential retribution. The article also explores the controversy surrounding anonymous reviews, including concerns about potential abuse and the credibility of anonymous comments. It concludes by emphasizing PubPeer's mission to maintain transparency and integrity in the scientific community, while also recognizing the need for responsible and respectful use of anonymity.

scientific publishing ꞏ peer review ꞏ academic research ꞏ scientific misconduct ꞏ scientific integrity ꞏ research ethics ꞏ scholarly communication ꞏ anonymity ꞏ open science ꞏ transparency ꞏ scientific scrutiny ꞏ academic accountability ꞏ scientific community ꞏ whistleblowing ꞏ research evaluation ꞏ scientific critique ꞏ reputation management ꞏ academic freedom ꞏ online platforms ꞏ scientific discourse ꞏ scientific controversies ꞏ academic anonymity ꞏ scientific objectivity ꞏ academic misconduct ꞏ scientific transparency ꞏ scientific collaboration ꞏ academic reputation ꞏ research validation ꞏ research misconduct