[01] Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, Miki-Cho Post Office, Kagawa-ken, Japan.

Science forms a fundamental core of many aspects of society. Many objects, functionalities, systems and processes are based on scientific principles and fundamentals. The latter two are often derived from scientific discovery which is traditionally built upon appropriate hypothesis testing, and exposed through published reports, in the form of scientific papers. Thus, any object or process that relies upon the methodology that underlies a scientific manuscript also relies on its basal premise of veracity. A scientific paper that has a flawed methodology – or errors contained therein – that is transmitted to third party users who do not suspect any flaws or errors can pose a potential threat to the integrity of science, and society. While processing a scientific paper, quality control is usually imposed through peer review, traditionally in a blind or double blind format, but also, in more rare cases, as open peer review, and thus there is shared responsibility by authors, editors, peers and publishers for what is ultimately released into the literature. Post-publication peer review (PPPR) serves to cover gaps inherent to traditional peer review. Where quality control has failed in the latter, the former can serve as an effective tool to cover those gaps. Correcting the literature after it has been published is an integral part of the publishing process and it is incumbent upon editors and publishers to provide the appropriate channels and means to allow for errors, problems and more serious issues related to publishing ethics, such as plagiarism, to be addressed. Scientific activism serves as one vocal tool to bring awareness to the wider scientific community and public about such issues. Literature that is not corrected will remain inherently flawed and corrupted, and will serve as a poor educational tool for young scientists. Poor science and corrupted literature represent a bad business model and can also represent a danger to society. Such issues, discussed here in this opinion piece, must be more openly, widely and publicly debated.

Editorial Firewall, Expression of Concern, Peer Review, Plagiarism, Quality Control, Resistance

[01] Teixeira da Silva JA. 2011. Who owns science, owns society. Maejo International Journal of Science and Technology 5(1): S1–S10. [02] McLaughlin H, Robbins S, Fogel SF, Busch-Armendariaz N, Wachter K, Pomeroy EC. 2015. Writing a good peer review to improve scholarship: what editors value and authors find helpful. Social Work Education: The International Journal DOI: 10.1080/02615479.2015.1021550 [03] Teixeira da Silva JA, Dobránszki J 2015. Problems with traditional science publishing and finding a wider niche for post-publication peer review. Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance 22(1): 22-40. [04] Qiu J. 2015. Safeguarding research integrity in China. National Science Review 2: 122-125. [05] Teixeira da Silva JA. 2013. Responsibilities and rights of authors, peer reviewers, editors and publishers: a status quo inquiry and assessment. The Asian and Australasian Journal of Plant Science and Biotechnology 7(Special Issue 1): 6–15. [06] Teixeira da Silva JA. 2013. The need for post-publication peer review in plant science publishing. Frontiers in Plant Science 4: Article 485. [07] Teixeira da Silva JA. 2014. Postpublication peer review in plant science. Science Editor (Council of Science Editors) 37(2): 57+59. [08] Teixeira da Silva JA. 2013. The Thomson Reuters Impact Factor: critical questions that scientists should be asking. The Asian and Australasian Journal of Plant Science and Biotechnology 7(Special Issue 1): 81-83. [09] Teixeira da Silva JA. 2013. The ISSN: critical questions that scientists should be asking. The Asian and Australasian Journal of Plant Science and Biotechnology 7(Special Issue 1): 76-80. [10] Teixeira da Silva JA. 2014. Global Science Books: a tale from the cuckoo’s nest. How predatory open access publishing can influence the metrics of a traditional scholarly publisher. KOME 2(2): 73-81. [11] Teixeira da Silva JA. 2013. Predatory publishing: a quantitative assessment, the Predatory Score. The Asian and Australasian Journal of Plant Science and Biotechnology 7(Special Issue 1): 21-34. [12] Teixeira da Silva JA, Dobránszki J. 2013. How not to publish an open access journal: a case study. The Asian and Australasian Journal of Plant Science and Biotechnology 7(Special Issue 1): 102-110. [13] Teixeira da Silva JA. 2013. Taxing the intellectual base: should authors foot the publishing bill? The Asian and Australasian Journal of Plant Science and Biotechnology 7(Special Issue 1): 111-113. [14] Teixeira da Silva JA. 2013. The Global Science Factor v. 1.1: a new system for measuring and quantifying quality in science. The Asian and Australasian Journal of Plant Science and Biotechnology 7(Special Issue 1): 92-101. [15] Teixeira da Silva JA. 2013. Snub publishing: theory. The Asian and Australasian Journal of Plant Science and Biotechnology 7(Special Issue 1): 35-37. [16] Teixeira da Silva JA. 2014. Snub publishing: evidence from the Anthurium literature. Publishing Research Quarterly 30(1): 166-178. [17] Teixeira da Silva JA. 2014. Recent retraction cases in plant science that show why post-publication peer review is essential. Journal of Advancement in Engineering and Technology 1(3): 4 pp (DOI: 10.15297/JAET.V1I3.03). [18] Teixeira da Silva JA. 2013. Should an editor or peer reviewer be openly acknowledged? The Asian and Australasian Journal of Plant Science and Biotechnology 7(Special Issue 1): 116-117. [19] Teixeira da Silva JA. Dobránszki, J., Van, P.T., Payne, W.A. 2013. Corresponding authors: rules, responsibilities and risks. The Asian and Australasian Journal of Plant Science and Biotechnology 7(Special Issue 1): 16-20. [20] Teixeira da Silva JA. 2013. How to better achieve integrity in science publishing. European Science Editors 39(4): 97-98.