Post-Publication Review

Description

James Nuzzo:

“When a researcher submits a paper to an academic journal, it typically undergoes peer review. The paper is first assigned to an editor, who determines whether it falls within the journal’s scope. If it does, the editor invites other academics to evaluate the work. Most papers are appraised by two or three reviewers, though in some cases four or five may be called upon. If the reviewers return a slew of negative assessments, the editor is unlikely to accept the paper for publication. In that case, the paper is rejected, and the author usually submits it to a different journal. If the reviews are largely favorable, however, the editor will typically invite the author to respond to the reviewers’ comments and submit a revised version of the manuscript.

At a given journal, a paper may go through one to four rounds of review before it is published. This entire process is known as “peer review.” But a more precise label is, pre-publication peer review.

Once a paper is published, the paper can still be critiqued and commented on. This is called post-publication review.

Historically, post-publication review has most often taken the form of “letters to the editor.” These are short responses to recently published papers, typically limited to around 500 words and 5–10 references. Thematic analyses of such letters show that they are most commonly used to challenge a paper’s methods or conclusions, identify data errors or inaccurate referencing, dispute definitions or terminology, or raise ethical or safety concerns.

Letters to the editor—whether published in academic journals or in newspapers — play an important role in societies committed to the free exchange of ideas and debate. That said, this format has notable limitations.

First, some journals do not publish letters at all, and others that nominally accept them often do little to advertise or encourage their submission. Letters are also far less common in the humanities than in fields like medicine, leaving humanities papers comparatively insulated from rapid critique.”

(https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/why-critiquing-crazy-academic-papers)