@johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org
Post #3237032
2024-03-27 23:26 UTC
@nasamuffin@jorts.horse
After publication (if at all), then often as public comments. As preprint volume in the (bio)medical sciences increased in the last years studies comparing preprints and the journal-published version of the work have shown that preprints aren’t necessarily of poorer quality than peer-reviewed studies and that post-publication reviews can work well. 1/4
Replies (1)
-
@johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org 2024-03-27 23:27
@nasamuffin@jorts.horse What would replace pre-publication peer review is depends on the audience. At least in biomedical research, I would estimate that >95% of publications are only read by other scientists, which can assess findings from their field of expertise while they read them (they are the peers in peer review after all). Of course not all findings are within one’s field of expertise, which is where post-publication peer review comes in. 2/4