There is a pedagogic and pragmatic reason to consider post-publication reviews, which I believe are often dismissed. Science is an ever-correcting process, but also a slow process. Academia is a social microcosm where personal and competing interests thrive. This combination leads to bad science taking a very long time to correct. A paper, from an esteemed researcher or lab, can be published that may contain errors or issues that invalidate its central claims. Engaging with the work through a public, even informal post publication critique and commentary is invaluable in ensuring such research is properly viewed. However, such public critiques can be quite difficult to do and carry their own stigma, especially for early career researchers.

However, while engaging in this practice can be quite taunting, I have found that most learning for academics can come from seeing how experts in the field openly and publicly debate existing, peer-reviewed, and published work. I’ve seen papers be completely dismantled due to poor statistical methodologies employed, incorrect interpretation of the results, or simply theoretical issues that would invalidate the central premise of said paper. Often, these come in the form of social media interactions, blog posts, or pub peer comments. But all are valuable. They remind us that science does not end with peer review; that is simply the first level of scrutiny that a piece of work must pass.

About the author:
Mircea Zloteanu | @mzloteanu | @mzloteanu.bsky.social | King’s College London