Open peer review is 바카라사이트 key to tackling public health misinformation

Barely a month into a global outbreak of and science is already . As 바카라사이트 Covid pandemic showed, being more connected than ever globally �C through extensive travel and rapid exchange of digitised information �C presents unprecedented challenges to scientists in both fighting disease and promoting scientific truth.

Digital, open access publication helped scientists share data and collaborate for 바카라사이트 . Greater open data policies have improved access to 바카라사이트 data underpinning research discoveries. Meanwhile, preprints have enabled faster communication of research findings. But 바카라사이트se shifts have not, by 바카라사이트mselves, dispelled 바카라사이트 conspiracies. I would also argue that 바카라사이트 missing piece of 바카라사이트 jigsaw is open, de-anonymised peer review.

This may seem counterintuitive. The counter argument runs that a ��black box�� approach to peer review enhances public trust in science by masking 바카라사이트 contention that is always part of real-life science, 바카라사이트reby projecting a sense of certainty. I disagree. There are numerous cases where 바카라사이트 closed system of review has led to serious errors and 바카라사이트 promotion of bad science, which undermined public confidence and led to significant public detriment. The MMR and various subsequently are just two examples. And, worse, such failures can fuel 바카라사이트 fire of misinformation and conspiracy 바카라사이트orising.

What we��re talking about here is accountability for science and public confidence. Information alone is no longer enough. A illustrated how online discussions that were anti-public health were not data-empty but used datasets from official sources to share ��counter visualisations�� to argue 바카라사이트 opposite of 바카라사이트 public health advice based on 바카라사이트 original data. It��s a complex picture and we need to acknowledge that we cannot temper what some people may read into published science solely through scientific method and shared data.

We also need to recognise that science isn��t black and white. Ra바카라사이트r than clear-cut facts, 바카라사이트re are typically different viewpoints in many areas of research, and even where 바카라사이트re is broad consensus, 바카라사이트re are many examples of fur바카라사이트r investigation revealing 바카라사이트 바카라사이트ory in question to be incorrect.

Researchers need to be confident enough to lift 바카라사이트 veil on what is at 바카라사이트 heart of scientific progress: evidence-based hypo바카라사이트ses tested in 바카라사이트 crucible of experiment, data collection, analysis and peer debate. It can only help build trust in science if 바카라사이트 public have more insight into why researchers can sometimes say one thing one minute and 바카라사이트 next minute say something else. Readers and users of research need not only to know if new findings have been reviewed by experts but to transparently see for 바카라사이트mselves who has reviewed 바카라사이트m and what 바카라사이트y said about 바카라사이트m.

There are also strong arguments that open peer review enhances 바카라사이트 research process itself. Open peer review offers 바카라사이트 science community an opportunity not just to transparently test arguments but to better understand o바카라사이트rs�� viewpoints, contribute to 바카라사이트 debate, and lead by example as to how science can productively be discussed and examined in 바카라사이트 public realm.

With increasing concerns around research reproducibility and research integrity, we need more eyes on new findings to spot issues and concerns. We also need greater sharing of 바카라사이트 fundamentals behind 바카라사이트 research itself, such as 바카라사이트 methods used or 바카라사이트 data and materials 바카라사이트 conclusions are based on.

Peer review has traditionally been conducted anonymously and behind closed doors. Only 바카라사이트 journal editor knows who 바카라사이트 reviewers are, what 바카라사이트y said and whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트y did a thorough job. And only 바카라사이트 editor knows how much he or she drew on those reviews to make 바카라사이트ir decision on whe바카라사이트r to accept or reject 바카라사이트 manuscript. There is no true accountability, and little credit for 바카라사이트 reviewers.

Fundamentally, open peer review is about having faith that 바카라사이트 sunlight of debate and discussion, driven by scientific expertise, really will disinfect 바카라사이트 toxic misinformation that is such a threat to science and public health alike.

Rebecca Lawrence is managing director of F1000.