key: cord-0859912-u2vn04bd authors: Teixeira da Silva, Jaime A.; Al-Khatib, Aceil title: How do Clarivate Analytics and Publons propose to fortify peer review in the COVID-19 era? date: 2021-02-13 journal: J Taibah Univ Med Sci DOI: 10.1016/j.jtumed.2021.01.008 sha: 0afee77a965e3bfd46dcd90a43c7c8e516428035 doc_id: 859912 cord_uid: u2vn04bd nan regarding the inefficiencies of peer review, we decided to approach both Publons and Clarivate Analytics with a series of frank questions about issues that we believe need to be resolved: concerns that we had regarding the problem of fake or fraudulent peer reviews and the verification of peer reviewers' expertise (Appendix 1 and 2). How has peer review evolved since the acquisition? Publons' former mission statement d was clear (Figure 1 ), namely, to use experts to speed up research. However, the term 'expert' was removed from the mission statement in 2018 ( Figure 1B and C), e which suggests that the quality/ standards bar has been dropped rather than raised as anyone, including non-experts, can be valid peer reviewers at Publons, indicated by the fact that three of the biomedical journals f who offer reviewer recognition with Publons accepted a dog as an editor in a sting operation. g They were EC Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine, h Journal of Community Medicine & Public Health Care, i and Journal of Tobacco Stimulated Diseases. j On the other hand, the use of stings is unscholarly because it involves intrinsic false and misleading elements by the individuals conducting the operation. 9 In an editorial, Nassi-Calo`1 0 remarked that the acquisition would enable editors to spot fake peer reviewers 'by associating citation data from authors with their reviewing records in Publons'. Associating citation data with reviewing activity, we argue, could be used to develop a new metric, or another perverse incentive 11 that would add pressure to already exploited and pressured academics. Our argument is reasonable if one examines more closely a previous viewpoint by Smith 12 and another more recently by Wilkinson and Down. 13 Smith stated: 'Publons does not reward its users for the number and impact of published papers; instead, it ranks users [and institutions] on the basis of the number of papers they have peer reviewed', 12 while Wilkinson and Down 13 suggested that universities can capture the quantity of peer review their researchers are already conducting. However, are there not risks in rewarding the quantity of peer review over its quality? 8 Smith further noted that Publons' service will encourage scientists to contribute to the peer review process because many scientists like him could be 'embarrassed to broadcast to everyone that [they] have published more papers than [they] have peer reviewed'. Arguments by Nassi-Calo`and Smith that some potentially 'predatory' journals offer peer review recognition with Publons, as demonstrated above, raise important questions that we have sought to answer. If Publons can depend on editors to spot fictitious peer reviewers, then it might be able to weed out predatory peers, 14 but if Publons rewards the quantity, rather than the quality of peer review, how will Publons and Clarivate Analytics improve it? How will journals and their editors, who failed to spot a fake editor, 15 be able to effectively detect fake peer review? As co-winners of the 2017 ALPSP Award, k one would expect Publons to engage with academics and the public to provide concrete answers to such concerns. These concerns became more tangible, as was highlighted by a study that identified over 6,000, from a total sample of 183,743, 'predatory' reviews (i.e., reviews of Cabell-blacklisted 'predatory' journals) on Publons. 16 There have been some notable achievements by both parties. Just prior to the acquisition, Clarivate Analytics partnered with ImpactStory (Figure 2 . The website where that announcement was made has been scrubbed clean, raising concerns about the erasure of documents that were publicly available, without any suitable explanation (B). The erasure of that press release further calls into question whether the partnership is still valid and active. Sources (screenshots taken on 24 June 2017 (A), 23 January 2018 (B)): http://news.clarivate.com/2017-06-23-Clarivate-Analytics-announces-landmark-partnership-with-Impactstory-to-make-open-access-content-easier-for-researchers-to-use (A, B). k https://www.alpsp.org/Past-Winners. l https://clarivate.com/news/clarivate-analytics-announceslandmark-partnership-impactstory-make-open-access-contenteasier-researchers-use/ (a screenshot is provided in Figure 2 ). m http://unpaywall.org/. n https://www.asm.org/index.php/newsroom/item/6857-asm-andpublons-team-up-to-bring-recognition-to-peer-reviewers (URL now giving the following message 'Not all of us live forever, including our pages, i.e., reference rot). The Publons site indicates that ASM is still an official partner: https://publons.com/publisher/42/ american-society-for-microbiology. Reviewer Connect', which was described as a powerful tool to revolutionise editorial workflows for publishers o that combined 'Publons' exclusive peer review database with the [.] Web of Science author and citation index'. Reviewer Connect was developed to enable all publishers and journals, regardless of which peer review submission system they use, to 'find, screen, and connect with expert peer reviewers'. p On 2 May 2019, Publons partnered with Clarivate Analytics' Web of Science ResearcherID. q However, unlike open peer review, traditional peer review reports are blind, not open access, so their quality cannot be verified. 17, 18 Suggested changes to Publons to improve peer review transparency There are several clearly positive aspects of Publons for authors who serve as reviewers, the most evident being a visible, public 'reward', in the form of recognition, for their effort as peer reviewers. Nonetheless, we recommend that Publons negotiates with publishers to ensure that all peer review reports are converted into open reports as this could validate the peer review activity of authors. 19 Publons could also expose those who falsely claim to be peer reviewers of prestigious journals, so credits could be annulled for that author. Although Publons' COVID-19 index r might assist experts to make sense of the flood of COVID-19 research, will critical reviews be encouraged by open review comments, and will negative scores for papers and preprints be permitted by Publons? To detect fraud in peer review, Publons and Clarivate Analytics could use open peer review, digital identity verification, block fake reviewers' accounts, blacklist fraudulent entities, and adopt fraud detection tools. s,t In essence, academics would like to know whether negative reviews, predatory reviewers, or failed peer reviews are rewarded at Publons. 20 This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. There are no ethical or financial issues, conflicts of interest, or animal experiments related to this research. Appendix 2. Questions posed to Clarivate Analytics on 15 October 2017. Despite a reminder on 15 January 2018, no response has ever been received. 1. Will the deal between Publons and CA (i.e., the purchase of Publons by CA on 1 June 2017), eliminate or reduce the problem of fake peer review and peer review rings? This is because fake peer review is sometimes provided by real peer reviewers who happen to be authors' friends. 2. Can CA elaborate and provide concrete examples about its previous statement, 'Problems such as fraudulent scientific research and inefficiencies in peer review are among those that can be addressed using the combined strength of the two companies': https://www.thebookseller.com/ news/clarivate-analytics-buys-publons-562691 3. Would CA consider using peer review reports to develop a future metric? If yes, how will the quality of peer review be measured, and how will this incorporate, or be associated with, the journal impact factor (JIF)? 4. Who can access the list of journals with a JIF? Can authors, journalists, or the public access this list? If not, why not? 5. Can CA enlighten researchers about the future of peer review, in particular the timeliness of peer review. Is this issue considered an inefficiency that CA would like to address, and if so, how does CA propose to achieve this? Exploratory analysis of Publons metrics and their relationship with bibliometric and altmetric impact The Clarivate TM Analytics acquisition of Publons e an evolution or commodification of peer review? The Hague, The Netherlands: The International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers Predatory and exploitative behaviour in academic publishing: an assessment Which are the tools available for scholars? A review of assisting software for authors during peer reviewing process Fake peer reviews, fake identities, fake accounts, fake data: beware! AME Predatory publishing, hijacking of legitimate journals and impersonation of researchers via special issue announcements: a warning for editors and authors about a new scam Rewarding the quantity of peer review could harm biomedical research Stings, hoaxes and irony breach the trust inherent in scientific publishing In time: publons seeks to attract reviewers and improve peer review Academic research in the 21st century: maintaining scientific integrity in a climate of perverse incentives and hypercompetition Will Publons popularize the scientific peer-review process? Publons: Releasing the untapped power of peer review for universities Is biomedical research protected from predatory reviewers? Predatory journals recruit fake editor Who reviews for predatory journals? A study on reviewer characteristics. preprint, not peer reviewed Peer review and Publons e enhancements for the reviewer Peer review quality and transparency of the peerreview process in open access and subscription journals Challenges to open peer review Are negative reviews, predatory reviewers or failed peer review rewarded at Publons? How do Clarivate Analytics and Publons propose to fortify peer review in the COVID-19 era JATdS and AA equally conceived and designed the study, conducted background research, collected, organised, analysed, and interpreted information, and co-wrote all drafts of the paper. The authors have critically reviewed and approved the final draft of the article and are responsible for the manuscript's content and similarity index.All website links were last verified on 17 January 2021.