![\"\"](\"http:\/\/labrigger.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/10\/pp.png\" "\\"pp\\"")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Post publication peer review has yet to really take off, but Labrigger hopes it does. One of the newest sites is PubPeer<\/a>.<\/p>\n PubPeer does it right, allowing for anonymity. This is important in order to obtain candid opinions from the scientific community. The bland and boring reviews at F1000<\/a> show what comes out when anonymity is not allowed. <\/p>\n An addition benefit is an increased quantity of participation: compare the content on Wikipedia<\/a> and Scholarpedia<\/a>. The latter has non-anonymous authorship, and although the articles are high quality, the quantity<\/em> is very poor compared to Wikipedia. Anonymity lowers the threshold for making casual additions to online resources.<\/p>\n PubPeer is not a free-for-all, however, it is trying to keep the comments constructive by only allowing authors of papers to create accounts and comment. <\/p>\n A similar effort, The Third Reviewer<\/a>, seems to have been abandoned. I get the impression that the PubPeer platform is a bit better automated than The Third Reviewer, so perhaps it has more staying power.<\/p>\n One concern is that anonymity will mean the comments will be dominated by cranks and disgruntled colleagues, and might even devolve to the level of YouTube comments<\/a>. However, as evidence to the contrary, the comments on the short-lived Third Reviewer site were all fairly constructive and generally positive, even when pointing out technical flaws or other issues (examples 1<\/a>, 2<\/a>, and 3<\/a>).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" \n Post publication peer review has yet to really take off, but Labrigger hopes it does. One of the newest sites is PubPeer<\/a>.<\/p>\n PubPeer does it right, allowing for anonymity. This is important in order…<\/p>\n