Vox interviews the founders of PubPeer, a platform for sharing peer reviews of scientific articles after those articles have already been published.
Vox asks what’s wrong with the scientific peer-review process right now, and the PubPeer founders respond, “While standard ‘pre-publication’ peer review often does improve the quality of published work, it is also clear that it lets through a huge number of mistakes and over-interpretations, and a surprising amount of misconduct. And the system as it stands has great difficulty in correcting work once published.”
Why you can’t always believe what you read in scientific journals (Vox, March 16, 2015)
