On 2016 Mar 06, Boris Barbour commented:

The debate continues under Blatt's follow up editorial Blatt MR, 2016.

On 2015 Dec 24, Michael R Blatt commented:

Dear Gerhard,

Thank you for your comment. Setting aside the issues of fraud and whistleblowing, I agree that there is no place for anonymous commenting in scientific debate.

Open debate is the cornerstone of scientific progress, especially in the "massively cooperative exercise" (to quote one of the PubPeer commenters) that is scientific research. Publication is only the beginning of scientific debate. Furthermore, contrary to arguments commonly raised about the flood of supposedly 'ultimately unreliable publications', history has shown time and again that progress often arises from what, in hindsight, is ultimately unreliable.

The SCIENCE article from 2011 that I referred to is a classic example. There was nothing fraudlent about the data presented at the time. It proved unreliable only in the hyperbole of its interpretation and it stimulated research leading to important insights about a transporter that scavenges phosphate in the presence of exceptionally high levels of the structurally similar arsenate anion.

Let us hope that this next generation of internet-literate scientists take the time to think through, and rectify, the conflated reasoning that has been promoted by certain elements behind PPPR.

Best regards,

Mike

On 2017 Jun 17, Misha Koksharov commented:

"Is what we do really science or a glorified marketing exercise?"

This is indeed a very interesting and controversial question. Opinions vary from "problems are minor" to "iceberg dead ahead, sir".

Yuri Lazebnik wrote a really interesting and thoughtful paper (Lazebnik Y, 2015) trying to dissect this problem.

At this time it may be even more important than his famous piece ('Can a biologist fix a radio?' Lazebnik Y, 2002) on still current challenges of comprehensive understanding of biological systems.

Regarding the marketing topic, the entertaining and educative paper by Dan Graur (Graur D, 2013) is too good not to mention here. He is also sometimes depicted as a 'vigilante scientist' (Bhattacharjee Y, 2014).

On 2015 Dec 15, Gerhard Nebe-von-Caron commented:

a thought provoking editorial indeed. Do we want to foster an environment were people hide in anonymity or do we want to promote openness and honesty. To turn into anonymity is only showing that one has no faith in openness and honesty as one is not prepared to take a personal risk for its value. If they are however not the foundation of ones science, is what we do really science or a glorified marketing exercise?

On 2015 Nov 01, Brandon Stell commented:

PubPeer has responded to this editorial in a post titled "Vigilant Scientists" http://blog.pubpeer.com/?p=200

On 2015 Oct 14, Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva commented:

I think we need to give time to all parties to evaluate the need, or not, for anonymity. I personally believe that anonymous opinions are important, even if sometimes there are risks involved, simply because a large segment of scientists might be feeling afraid to comment openly by name, not because they are trying to hide, or to be malicous in any way, but simply because they are afraid. The fear of whistle-blowers, vigilantes and vigilant scientists who prefer to comment anonymously needs to be respected.

A few things: 1) A disclaimer. I have never met, or communicated with Lydia, below. 2) Prof. Blatt has given his personal assurances to enact reform and improve the system at Plant Physiology. This is an extremely positive thing, and an example we would pray for in so many other plant science journals. So, to be fair, Prof. Blatt should be given some space, and time, to fulfill his promises. The only aspect I am concerned that he might not consider, is to act upon the anonymous voice. 3) Given the real risks, as Lydia has pointed out, of abuse by publishers to silence the voices of critics, I have opened up a question at ResearchGate, namely: When should scientists be banned by journals and publishers?

http://www.researchgate.net/post/When_should_scientists_be_banned_by_journals_and_publishers

On 2015 Oct 12, Lydia Maniatis commented:

Mike, T&S and Elsevier evidently have the de facto right to ban any author they want from their journals, for whatever reason they see fit, without warning, without appeal, making up the rules as they go along, picking off critics who annoy them. It doesn't matter whether you or I agree or disagree with their decision (should you choose to take a position); as you said in an earlier comment, it wouldn't make much difference. Given that these journals are conduits for scientific communication, this is an extraordinary power for the scientific (and any democratic) community – including the editorial boards of all the journals involved - to tacitly grant them. At a minimum, I would expect some verbal protest, some minor effort to push back on this worrying state of affairs.

Anonymity on PubPeer is here to stay, for all the excellent reasons its editors laid out in their blog post. It's clear that it has enabled more information to emerge, much in the public interest - and more information is better than less. From now on, scientists who publish their work should expect it to be gone over with a fine-tooth comb, and problems publicly aired, by Peers, Unregistereds, and people with names. You express faith in the majority of your colleagues – among these are the Peers commenting on PP.

In case there's a misunderstanding, I have no connection to, nor have I ever communicated with, Dr. T. da Silva. T&S's side of the story was laid out in the email they sent him, which was published in the article in Retraction Watch.

On 2015 Oct 12, Michael R Blatt commented:

Dear Lydia,

I did not unmask you; one of your PubPeer ‘Unreg’ colleagues did. However, that you should choose to hide in this way does not lend credence to your stance nor, as Moriarty notes, does it command respect.

Your desire to see the world in black and white also does not do Jaime’s cause justice. Let’s just say that it is presumptuous to suggest that I believe T&S acted properly. I did not declare my support for T&S. What I did say was that I reserve the right to withold comment until I can know the full details, or at least hear the other side of the argument. I would certainly welcome what further correspondence you (or Jaime) might have. However, you need to have the courtesy to allow me to think for myself.

On one matter we can agree, however: this conversation is probably over.

Regards,

Mike

On 2015 Oct 09, Lydia Maniatis commented:

Dear Mike,

Take your time. I think our conversation has run its course. You believe that Taylor and Francis may have acted properly, that it is sometimes OK for a publisher to ban an author. I believe the opposite, to the point that I find it difficult to believe they were within their legal rights. If and when you find the time to inform yourself to your satisfaction about this particular case, we can continue the conversation.

If I had been particularly concerned with guarding my anonymity on PubPeer, you would have needed to be far more clever to unmask me. Your attempt to make this conversation about me (to label me as "highly emotional" - another evasive tactic on your part) and your triumph in "unmasking" me as Peer 14, as though this mattered (did I make any comments there I should be ashamed of?) is one of the reasons I support anonymity. Fortunately, my participation in future PubPeer discussions, when I choose to remain anonymous, won't be subject to such unworthy, ad hominem tactics.

Regards, Lydia

On 2015 Oct 08, Michael R Blatt commented:

Dear Lydia:-

I can see that this is a highly emotionally-charged issue for you, whereas it appears less so for Jaime (though I can fully imagine why it might be otherwise). So, I do think it important to step back for a moment.

Let me relate another matter to you. This pertains to a case that goes back more than a quarter of a century and took place in a university in the mid-West of the United States. I was peripherally associated with the case, primarily because of my knowledge of the professor involved (a good friend, as it happens, and we remain so still). The professor, let’s call him Fred for now, became embroiled in an argument with his head of institute. The details of the argument are less important than the consequences. Fred was so aggrieved by the way he felt he had been treated, that he became disruptive, aggressive and threatening to other academic staff and students alike. In the end, following disciplinary proceedings, Fred was barred from the institute and took ‘early retirement.’ From my own perspective, I could understand why Fred was aggrieved – I, too, felt that the initial handling of the argument was problematic – but I could also see that his reaction was inappropriate and disproportionate, and that the institute had no choice but to bar him. In effect, Fred was within his rights, but was unwilling to accept responsibility for his actions and their consequences.

I am not suggesting that there is a parallel here, but I recall the story to point out that there are always two sides to an argument. In Fred’s case, I was close enough to the events that it was easy to see what was going on, from both sides. In Jaime’s case, I have gathered what information I can from RetractionWatch, but I note that the information is presented almost entirely from his perspective. In your insistence that I choose a side, do you really mean to deny me the right to hear both sides of the argument?

Bests,

Mike

p.s. I’ll need to attend to my own day job now, so it may be a few days before I respond to any more comments.

On 2015 Oct 08, Lydia Maniatis commented:

Are there circumstances that, in your opinion, would justify banning an individual from the literature in order to stifle and punish legally protected speech?

If not, then it's not much of a stretch to say that you oppose, not only the "idea that a scientist could be unjustly banned", but the real-life act itself, as inflicted, for example by Taylor and Francis, on TdS. Do you still feel uncomfortable making such a statement, and if so, what type of information do you feel you would need in order to make a decision, one way or the other - to be able to say, in other words, either: "I think what Taylor and Francis did was proper or justifiable;" or "I think TdS was banned unjustly as the consequence of signed critiques."

As discussed in my earlier comments, I think it's important that you take a position on this. It's hollow to say, well, I oppose injustice/censorship in theory, but I won't take a position on any particular case. You might as well be for it.

On 2015 Oct 08, Michael R Blatt commented:

Dear Lydia, My apologies for misinterpreting your question. Let me also rephrase my answer then. Of course I am dismayed at the idea that a scientist could be banned unjustly from publishing as the consequence of signed critiques. Bests, Mike

On 2015 Oct 07, Lydia Maniatis commented:

Dear Dr. Blatt: Please allow me to rephrase my question: Do you oppose, as a matter of principle, the banning of scientists from the scientific literature by corporations in retaliation for their speech? If not, then I can only surmise that you endorse the right of your own journal, and any journal, to ban troublesome critics. Is this correct? Ethically speaking, do you believe scientific publishers have the right to punish their critics in this way?

As he himself points out, the Texeira da Silva case is extremely pertinent to what we are discussing here. It shows that the system can effectively silence critics (that he stubbornly persists is to his credit, but he has been gravely disadvantaged). So as an ardent opponent of anonymous post-publication peer review, the choice you are proposing is this: a. Don't criticize the scientific establishment; b. Criticize by name, but don't expect members in good standing of said establishment to stand up for you - even when your scientific speech is censored in retaliation (what worse can happen to a scientist?). You will simply be neutralized if your criticism hits too close to the bone, and that will be OK with, for example, Dr. Michael Blatt. This isn't a case where an institution can fudge an excuse about irreconcilable differences – this is banning from the literature because a corporation wants to silence a critic! The situation could not be more clearcut, nor your reply more evasive.

In short, and with all due respect, you cannot play the innocent bystander in all this and still be a credible voice in the conversation. Anyone could be next. What if you were banned by PubPeer, for your opposition to anonymity? I suspect you would have something to say about that. I am not asking you to “speak out without knowledge,” but to inform yourself about, and take the proper action with regard to -at a minimum, express an opinion - facts that are, again, highly pertinent to the present conversation.

On 2015 Oct 12, Michael R Blatt commented:

Dear Jaime,

There are a lot of threads in your comment above. However, I suspect that your stance in ‘vigilance’ is not that different from the Anglo-Saxon definition. Certainly, you will understand the commonality of the two.

I guess where we part ways is that I do not see academia as somehow deeply tainted. Of course, as with any human endeavor, there are always a small number of individuals who will misuse the system. However, I am cautious to apply generalizations (I think Oscar Wilde had something to say about this!). The majority of the colleagues I have come to know in my career are firmly committed to improving society through knowledge and understanding, and they are open to criticism and debate. They certainly do not fall in the category of self-serving hypocrits.

With best regards,

Mike

On 2015 Oct 08, Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva commented:

Mike, once again, thank you for taking the time to respond. I guess you never imagined what a response your editorial would bring. Again, you should be praised for bringing the topics of anonymity and post-publication peer review or PPPR to the table among more respectable plant scientists. As you now know well, I have been struggling for years to convince plant scientists (and I have been in contact with several tens of thousands already) that there are very serious problems with the publishing process like traditional peer review, with what I perceive to be pseudo-ethics by some of the mainstream STM publishers, or at least double standards, and problems that range from small to serious in a wide range of plant science journals. I have even seen some comments critiquing Plant Physiology papers. This then tells me, as you have already confirmed, that there are some very fundamental problems. And one of the reasons why some of the most basic problems do not appear to be resolved is because of what I call an "editorial firewall". In other words, editors and publishers who are actively resisting correcting the literature for sometimes some very valid reasons, such as no pay, no time, or too much stress. Their excuses are sometimes valid, but the truth of the matter is that the problems remain and the issues don't get resolved. And this is ultimately their responsibility. Editors benefit from the glory of their positions, journals benefit from gambling the impact factor, which brings with it tremendous economic benefits since the IF is literally used as a form of currency in some countries. That is why individuals like me stand up against what we perceive to be hypocrisy, failure in leadership, double standards, lack of editorial ethics, common sense and professionalism, and cronyism.

I know, like you, that those who hold a position in academia have much to lose, including their position, salary, benefits, travel funding and of course research funding and grants. So, the vast majority most likely do not see any benefit in getting involved with PPPR, because it does not benefit them. This is the true sad part about the plant science community: it’s ultimately selfish. Indeed, some will argue ferociously about this claim, but think about it, for whose good exactly are you serving when you are serving as the EIC of Plant Physiology? What is the end game and final objective? Actually, I suspect that in your particular case, the objective is noble and the means to achieve it are thorough. So, it is not individuals like you whose integrity I am questioning. I am questioning the integrity of editors who have abused their power and positions, as I have documented abundantly about Elsevier’s Scientia Horticulturae and some editors in Taylor and Francis journals. Revelations about other editors in other publishers’ journals are likely going to surface as this “ban Jaime” trend expands.

But we will expand on these issues in more detail later on because they are intricately linked with your editorial.

To answer your question: yes, I am a science vigilante. When searching for the term vigilante online, it tends to result in a definition that is associated with anti-governance, anti-law, anti-establishment and, most importantly, using criminal methods. At least that is the predominant definition in the Anglo-Saxonic literature, and thus based upon which your editorial’s title has been based. Yet, in Latino cultures, the term “vigilante” means to be vigilant, or aware, or conscious. And it is within this framework that I would like to consider myself as a vigilante, as one who is aware of the issues, is concerned with them, and who is taking a pro-active stance to resolve them. Yet, I use no illegal methods or weapons, even though I have often described the state we are in in science and science publishing as a war. So, those who criticize my methods of criticism, who emphasize tone over facts and who prefer to point out politically-insensitive language over academically unsound literature are, very unfortunately, those who are in power. In editor boards, serving as the front-line of academic defense (actually farce) for publishers, and serving as PR managers for the publishers’ share-holders. I get it know. They really don’t like my voice. But they do lke to make profit from my intellect… do you understand what I’m getting at, Mike?

If in fact you did manage to see the move I pointed to, you will see a common thread between the grass-roots struggle. That is why I believe that the anonymous voice must never be removed, despite its darker side, because it serves to balance the scales of excessive and abusive power and injustice. It is this powerful elite that is hoping to expand, as Pope Francis so eloquently describes as the “globalization of indifference”. Have a good day Mike. Hope to continue this conversation at PMC.

On 2015 Oct 08, Michael R Blatt commented:

Dear Jaime:-

Okay. I’ve just checked my OED and Wikipedia. Here’s the latter’s summary:

"Vigilante justice" is often rationalized by the idea that adequate legal mechanisms for criminal punishment are either nonexistent, insufficient, or inefficient. Vigilantes typically see the government as ineffective in enforcing the law; such individuals often claim to justify their actions as a fulfillment of the wishes of the community.

Now, to answer your questions, perhaps obliquely, would you not agree that PubPeer has effectively (if inadvertently) associated itself with vigilantism? And is it not possible for such activities to include some identified individuals, even if the larger number are faceless? Finally, do you consider yourself a vigilante?

I suspect that you are coming back to the questions of anonymity, scientific commentary, and whistleblowing. Could I point you to the post on PubPeer (below)?

Unreg from 5th October: Whistleblowers need protection.

Scientists do too. For all its good intentions, PubPeer has become the Reddit of the sciences, full of bullies and harassers. Blatt’s editorial says in a nutshell “Don’t feed the trolls”.

Vigilante justice assumes guilt and is associated with murder by mob. Fortunately in science as in society at large we have agreed-upon systems to protect the rights of both the innocent and the guilty (yes, even those who err or worse should be treated with due process).

It takes little investment to pull up a figure, adjust the contrast, and slap it onto FigShare. Then the “guilty until proven innocent” army chimes in. How many times have you read words to the effect of “If you have nothing to hide than show us the blots”, and threatening statements to the effect of “hiring committees need to be informed of this”. (Yes, I realize a few criticisms are meticulously documented on PubPeer, but the majority involve little intellectual investment – I assume that this is the intention of Blatt’s widely disparaged comments about “minor issues with blots”).

Can you imagine a world where we interacted by shouting at each other “Your top button’s unbuttoned” “Your socks don’t match” – valid statements yes, but ultimately pointless. Is this really PubPeer’s vision for post-publication peer review? I don’t see where Blatt says there is no place for criticism, just an appeal for that criticism to be meaningful. Whether or not anonymity has a place in PPPR is an interesting question, but Blatt has a right to express his opinion.

A massively cooperative function like science requires a level of courtesy that goes beyond even those we afford to individual citizens. I applaud PubPeer for its efforts to initiate PPPR, but appeal for the implementation of policies that remove the witch-hunt element.

As I noted in my response to you before, anonymity embeds inequality in any debate and, from my perspective, is the cause of more problems than it solves. I noted too, in my response to Leonid Schneider, that I would be one of the first to jump onboard with PubPeer if they found a way to address the problems associated with anonymous posting.

I hope this helps.

Bests,

Mike

On 2015 Oct 07, Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva commented:

Prof. Blatt, I have tremendous respect for you, as a plant scientist, particularly your work on SNAREs. I also have great respect for Plant Physiology, which has resisted thus far the temptations of being enveloped by the larger commercial STM publishers to turn intellect into profit rather than seeking the greater good of science. And that is why some parts of your editorial disappointed me. Beginning with the title. I have much to share and explain, ask and show, but before I get there, I'd like to take a step back, right to the beginning of your editorial, namely the title. I’d like to keep the conversation public.

And I would like to home in on one word "vigilante".

I am not quite convinced yet that you understand the full implications of what you have written. I am not even sure how such a respectable scientist seems to have lost his touch with the base. In order for me to explain my concerns, I would like to ask you, and those who will be reading this, to take a precious 100 minutes of their time to view the following 2015 movie. It is called Cartel Land. You can view it for free at viooz if you do not have access. In particular, I would like you to home-in on three sound-bites in that movie: 51 minutes, 87.5 minutes and 93.45-95.00 minutes.

After you have watched this movie, I would like to ask 2 questions: 1) Do you associate the anonymous science movement with vigilantism? 2) Does a vigilante scientist have to be anonymous?

Then, if possible, please read my own editorial and special issue: http://www.globalsciencebooks.info/JournalsSup/13AAJPSB_7_SI1.html In particular: http://www.globalsciencebooks.info/JournalsSup/images/2013/AAJPSB_7(SI1)/AAJPSB_7(SI1)5o.pdf

Now my 3rd question: Would you, Prof. Blatt, consider me, based on the title of your editorial, to be a science vigilante? When you reflect on this response, please keep in mind the following: http://retractionwatch.com/2014/04/10/following-personal-attacks-and-threats-elsevier-plant-journal-makes-author-persona-non-grata/ http://retractionwatch.com/2014/11/20/journal-retracts-paper-when-authors-refuse-to-pay-page-charges/ http://retractionwatch.com/2015/09/24/biologist-banned-by-second-publisher/

I look forward to your frank responses to my three questions so that we can continue this dialogue that affects the entire plant science community.

On 2015 Oct 06, Michael R Blatt commented:

Dear Lydia:- Please consider what you are asking. First, I run a small society journal (however prestigeous) that has no connection to the publishers of which you speak. My influence woulld be pretty close to zero. Second, I am not familiar with the details of Teixeira da Silva case. If you are asking me to speak out without knowledge, I don't believe is the correct thing to do. I'm sorry. Bests, Mike

On 2015 Oct 05, Lydia Maniatis commented:

Dr. Blatt, I have one simple question. Dr. Texeira da Silva has been banned by scientific publishers because he openly, transparently, and honestly criticised them. Are you as angered by this as you are by the anonymity of PubPeer? Have you raised your voice against this unmitigated outrage, this clear and present danger to the open debate you say you advocate?

You ask: "how do we encourage thoughtful debate? How do we enable quality control and at the same time protect whistleblowers [and critics, I would add]?" Since you're against anonymity, I suggest that a good first step would be for people in your position - and you, specifically - to speak out in support of your courageous and banned colleague.

On 2015 Oct 12, Michael R Blatt commented:

Leonid:-

I am, of course, open to suggestions. I do think your reference to university 'research integrity' offices is a bit of a red herring - a bit like counting the the American Civil Liberties Union as an offshoot of the US government (which it isn't, at least it was not the last time I looked). Your opening statement is that the model doesn't work, but you conclude that it "does not work very well", so I suspect you recognise that your argument is on shaky ground.

I agree that there are a few high-profile cases (specifically the one you noted in Italy) that show the worst of political mishandling. However, I'm not convinced that anecdotal evidence of this kind is useful as a basis for discounting an independent watchdog altogether.

Perhaps we can discuss further either here or directly by email? I have great respect for your experience as a science journalist and will welcome your further thoughts.

Best regards,

Mike

On 2015 Oct 06, Leonid Schneider commented:

Dear Mike, I would happily support your model of cross-discipline body, but the thing is: it already exists and it doesn't work. Every serious university has its office of research integrity, most states have some kind of central investigative bodies, run by central public funders or independent officials. Yet what we get instead most of the times is Realpolitik, otherwise nobody would go and post anonymously all these accusations of data irregularities on PubPeer. Sometimes the investigations are orchestrated in a way the scientist must come out exonerated, there was recently such a case in Spain involving a prominent Italian cell cycle scientist (uncovered on PubPeer, actually). Sometimes more junior scientists shoulder entire blame so someone important may get away with a stern admonishment. Sometimes rules of scientific conduct are simply redefined to fit a certain case to protect an influential scientist. You as plant biologist surely know who I am talking about. I am not an idealist and I know there can never be a perfect system. But what you suggest is already in place and it does not work very well. What we need are more honest and integer scientists in senior positions than there are obviously now.

On 2015 Oct 06, Michael R Blatt commented:

Leonid:- I believe my response to Jaime Teixteira da Silva might help clarify my position. I apologise if my nuancing has perhaps clouded matters. So let me dispense with it and put the matter to you this way: if PubPeer were to address the issues of anonymity and moderating that I posed in my challenges (in my editorial and reiterated in the letter), then I guaranteee you that I would be one of the very first to jump on board as a supporter of the site. What am not prepared to do is to support the scientific vigilantism (and, again, I use the term advisedly) that is inevitable and demonstrable with the unmoderated anonymity of PubPeer as it operates now.

I think we agree that the current publishing system is not perfect and is under much strain. I also think that there are ways to address the most difficult problems you, and others, have identified without resorting to the current PubPeer model. For example -- and here I am thinking out loud, so you will please excuse me -- consider the idea to set up a cross-discipline body (or bodies) to deal with issues of fraud, etc., independent of the journals and recognised by the community. Such a body (or bodies) might be tasked with moderating and reviewing complaints, communicating with journals, and given teeth to drive their handling. The identity of its members would need to be open, and the charge would be not to hunt out instances of fraud, but to make the initial adjudication on community-initiated referrals and issue recommendations to the corresponding journals. Referrals to the body would be made in confidence, ie. non-anonymous (to prevent malicious referrals), but could be anonymized at the stage of communication to the journal to protect the referrer if need be. The board could also publish statistics on the broad-sense quality of journal handling (e.g. no response, in-processes, resolved) and some timeliness metric. N.B.: Here I am paraphrasing from recent discussions with some of my opposite numbers. So, yes, I have been thinking about how to deal with the problems of perception, transparency, protection of those who have not committed fraud/misconduct, community responsibility, etc.

In the end, we come down to the age-old problem: how to ensure due process that will give rigor to the way we deal with those who carry out fraud while protecting those who have not. I am simply not prepared to give support to a scheme that creates many more problems than it solves.

I hope this helps.

Best regards,

Mike

On 2015 Oct 05, Leonid Schneider commented:

Dear Dr. Blatt, reading your editorial again and again, I have the feeling that your primary issue is with the anonymous commenting on image/data irregularities, and less so about leading general academic discussions in the open. You have applied some interesting euphemisms for what some might consider as evidence of possible scientific misconduct. Thus, if you really think that whistle-blowing of potential data manipulations should go exclusively through "proper channels" and happen confidentially, you would be defending a broken system. You see, this approach has been tried for decades, with unsatisfactory results. But then again, what some perceive as potential data manipulations, you appear to see as utterly excusable. Thus I would appreciate if you were to clarify your position accordingly, maybe in a correction or an addendum to your editorial.

On 2015 Oct 04, Michael R Blatt commented:

Dear Dr. da Silva,

Thank you for your comments. I am happy to discuss thoughtfully on the open forum of PubMed Commons. Like you, I reflected long and hard before writing my piece for precisely the reasons we are entering into this discussion: anonymity, fear, and scientific debate. Several of my closest colleagues expressed their anxieties that putting my head ‘above the social media parapet’ could have negative consequences for them. I, too, had my doubts but felt it important to raise concerns expressed to me by colleagues, young and old, which I share. I am therefore writing both in response to your invitation and generally to some of the comments posted to my editorial. I want to thank Philip Moriarty who I have come to know over the past week and who is much more eloquent than I could ever be, and Leonid Schneider who has shown true grace in stepping back from his initial cynicism to participate in the discussion.

I agree with your point that we should not fear to associate our names with critical opinion and, like Moriarty, I am dismayed by the lack of appetite to engage in open debate (note my emphasis on names and open). I am also deeply disturbed by the attitude of those who think that scientific critique is a license to ride roughshod into any discussion without once considering the possibility of a wider context or background to the questions at hand. At the most trivial level, it is easy – and cheap – to extract a few lines and twist them to the ridiculous; at the most fundamental, it shows an ignorance of social norms that make constructive debate possible. It’s no wonder that my colleagues were anxious and that there is fear within the community. They fear to engage because they do not want to become targets of the vitriol that pervades anonymous social media. To my mind, this is a sign that the “patient is not well” and I agree fully with the assessments of Moriarty, Schneider and others that our current approach to scientific exchange is deeply flawed in many ways.

So we come to your concerns: journal publication, PPPR, and anonymity. Here I must respectfully disagree with you on several points. Consider your starting premise, that “the final product, i.e. the published paper [is] the product of a failsafe process that is not meant to be challenged.” Surely, this flies in the face of scientific enquiry and one of the first lessons we all learn as students: to challenge ideas in order to progress understanding. Nor is publication a final product; it’s just the most visible at times. The real product of a body of work lies in its capacity to guide subsequent studies and predict their outcomes. As scientists, we subject our own work, and that of others, to scrutiny that either validates, discounts, or refines their outputs. The scientific literature is riddled with misconceptions, false conclusions, and ideas that failed this so-called ‘test of time’. And so it should be. As scientists, we put our work and ideas out into the community and, as a community, we improve and expand on each body of work. In short, publication is only one small step in the scientific process and always has been.

Second, let me stress that the purpose of editorial review is to assess a body of research, its scientific soundness, and whether it is of sufficient interest to the community – and, most important to the journal readership – to justify publication. Maintaining ethical standards is, of course, part of this task, but only one part of it. Nor is is the editorial process failsafe. No journal editor is able to catch all errors, innocent or otherwise, although on the whole editors are usually pretty good at identifying problems. I agree that there is a place for post-publication critique, including an element of quality control. I stated as much in my editorial.

What I cannot abide is PubPeer’s stance on anonymity, and I am angered by their efforts to masquerade as a site for open discussion that reflects the opinions of the scientific community. Both I consider to be fundamentally deceitful. I outlined my reasons in the editorial and these have been reiterated in several posts in response. Anonymity does not ‘level the playing field’; quite the contrary, it embeds inequality in any debate simply because one side is hidden. Furthermore, anonymity opens the door to all kinds of antisocial and nefarious behaviour. You need only read many of the comments posted in response to my editorial to see the innuendo and vitriol that was unleashed towards me as well as towards others posting on the site. Such verbal abuse belongs … well, let’s just say it does not belong in the public domain outside the schoolyard. Call me old-fashioned if you will, but in my book this is unnecessary, grubby and, what’s worse, counterproductive. For most people, the mob mentality behind this kind of behaviour is quite frightening. And like it or not, mob mentality is the framework of vigilantism. Is it any wonder, then, that so many of my colleagues, young and old, are fearful? Is this the kind of ‘scientific debate’, indeed the kind of society, we want to support? I don’t. It seems to me that anonymity in these circumstances is not the solution, but the problem. It is at the root of much that has gone terribly wrong in scientific exchange today.

I agree that there are some circumstances in which confidentiality (not anonymity!) is necessary to protect the identities of individuals, especially of whistleblowers (I’ll come to this point in a moment). However, the vast majority of posts on PubPeer do not fall in this category, even those which highlight one or more errors in a figure. I maintain that it is possible for a PhD student or postdoc to approach a colleague, even a senior scientist, in order to point out an error, and to do so in a way that is constructive and non-threatening. This is a vital social skill to learn. I shudder to think that, through ‘social’ media, this skill could be lost to the sound bite of a tweet. Like Julian Stirling (cited on PubPeer in several posts), I have no patience with lazy or conflicted thinking, and I welcome critical analysis when presented thoughtfully. I encourage my students and postdocs to question me, and others, all the time and, no surprise, the ones who have done so have also proven most successful when they leave my lab. I think you and others have vastly overstated the dangers of retribution, in part perhaps by conflating scientific debate and error correction with whistleblowing. They are not the same.

As for misconduct, of course whistleblowers need protection through confidentiality, but not through anonymity. Again, I have set out my reasoning in the editorial and will not reiterate here. Mechanisms are in place to provide confidentiality, in the first instance through the established channels of most journals. I agree, too, that if these fail, then there must be alternative mechanisms that allow legitimate concerns to be addressed effectively. I, for one, support efforts to ensure such alternatives. However, I do not agree that the answer is through a culture of secrecy and hearsay.

So how do we encourage thoughtful debate? How do we enable quality control and at the same time protect whistleblowers? I don’t pretend to have all the answers, but it is patently clear to me and many others that the answer is not through a so-called post-publication peer review process that is anonymous and, for all intents and purposes, unmoderated. Again, I point you to my editorial and the three challenges I have laid before PubPeer. I believe Stell and his colleagues have a real opportunity to lead the way in raising the tenor of science in this social media age, but they must address these challenges to do so.

Finally, to your personal critique, I appreciate that you have included reference to your own pieces, as I am sure other readers will too.

Thank you.

Mike Blatt

On 2015 Oct 02, Paul Brookes commented:

I wrote a blog post response to this rather inflammatory editorial. http://www.psblab.org/?p=445 The gist of it is, this article is an exercise in punching down.

On 2015 Sep 30, Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva commented:

As a plant scientist, I consider this editorial to be very important since the topic affects us all. It is also important because it is one of the few open attempts to address post-publication peer review (PPPR) in plant science at the editorial level, which is precisely where the issue of failed traditional peer review [1] needs to be reformed. So, in that sense, Prof. Michael R. Blatt must be applauded for bringing the issue to the discussion table. However, I have read some very valid concerns and criticisms [2, 3] in the public debate, one being on PubPeer. PubPeer is the PPPR commenting platform that Prof. Blatt is precisely being mostly critical of in his editorial. I personally am a supporter of the anonymous movement in science simply because I have seen such widely egregious failure, at many levels (manuscript processing, editing, peer review, publisher-induced errors, etc.), in a wide range of plant science journals in my short career. I am aware that there are a lot of very powerful individuals in the editorial boards of plant science journals whose best interests do not seem to be to serve science itself, or its integrity, but rather to be self-serving (NOTE: I am not in any way implying this about Prof. Blatt, about his editors or his journal, with which I have had no, or limited, experience). And I have also seen how anonymity has been able to point out errors and misconduct in the plant science literature, allowing it to be finally corrected.

In a publishing system that has documented failure in the editorial system, and where publisher retribution can take place for calling out editorial failure [4, for my most recent personal experience], I am of the opinion that the voice of the critic needs protection. As much as the protection offered the blind peer reviewer in traditional publishing. This is because the critic’s voice needs to be heard and not suppressed. And one form is through the anonymous voice. Unfortunately, I am also of the belief that the plant science community is still vastly conservative and that the image associated with anonymity is still very negative, as implied by the title of this editorial, namely vigilantism, also synonymously used with witch-hunting, snitching, etc. So, very broadly, those who complain, or point out errors, or who are critical of authors, published papers, editors or publishers, tend to be demonized, and their opinions shot down. This can, very practically speaking, have very negative consequences on a scientist’s career, because conventional wisdom in science publishing is that the traditional peer review and the final product, i.e., the published paper, are the product of a fail-safe process that is not meant to be challenged. Because this also implies a challenge on the publishing status quo. Yet, in practical terms, how does one criticize the work of an individual, face to face, in an email, for example, without facing negative consequences (personal and professional), even if the claims or concerns are valid? Thus, the purpose of me making this comment at PubMed Commons (which I should add was not easy for me to decide to do) is to indicate to the plant science community that they should not fear their own voices, or to associate their names with a critical opinion. They should also not fear the anonymous voices of critique or discontent. There should be the liberty by all plant scientists, irrespective of their rank, to comment freely, either by name or anonymously, even if the opinions vary widely. However, I caution, especially in public, to maintain a respectful tone always, and always leave open the option that there are widely different views.

I think that the impact of this editorial needs to sink in a bit more, to allow the plant science pool to absorb the central message, but also the possible flaws and short-falls associated with Prof. Blatt’s image of PPPR and the central importance of anonymity in PPPR.

In closing this commentary, I do have one personal critique of this editorial which I will personally relay to Prof. Blatt and the Plant Physiology editor board once my PubMed Commons comment has been published. If one enters the terms “post-publication peer review plant science” into Yahoo, Google, or some of the widely used scientific data-bases, several of my own papers will appear addressing this topic [e.g., 5, 6]. I find it very disturbing, and disconcerting, as a fellow plant scientist, that Prof Blatt has not referenced any one of these papers (even if they are mostly letters or opinion pieces) that I have written, because they are the de facto birth of the PPPR movement in plant science. This to me indicates that Prof. Blatt (and/or Plant Physiology editors) did not reference the literature fairly, correctly, or in a balanced way, in this editorial. This would then imply that the editorial may reflect professional or literature bias and that the editorial process may thus be flawed. One could then question if all editors at Plant Physiology were aware of this editorial, and if they approved of its content, before it was published. Even though editorials are not usually peer reviewed in a traditional sense of the word, I am concerned, given my own side-lined literature, as well as the very critical opinions stated at PubPeer and by Paul S. Brookes, that this editorial was not sufficiently vetted, or revised, before publication.

I sincerely hope that the wider plant science community may offer more comments at PubMed Commons or at PubPeer, by name or anonymously, because, in my opinion, this editorial highlights the cross-road in plant science, and science itself, where the future of academic integrity, accountability and transparency are meeting, i.e., with PPPR and the anonymous movement. I have been trying to bring this issue to the attention of plant scientists for some years now, and have been heavily criticized by some and silently praised by others. I am hopeful that perhaps, with Prof. Blatt’s editorial, that more awareness and pro-active discussion, can now take place, in the public arena. I look forward to seeing a spirited and passionate discussion, with the purpose of hammering out some positive proposals to “fix” the plant science literature which is, in my opinion, currently full of flaws (small and large) that have resulted from the failure of the traditional publishing system. I also welcome critiques to my views expressed herein (by name or anonymously).

References

[1] Teixeira da Silva, J.A., 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.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08989621.2014.899909#.VJXPV0oBg

DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2014.899909

[2] https://pubpeer.com/publications/209CA2DF493322A5B5470F3B8EEDA0

[3] http://www.psblab.org/?p=445

[4] http://retractionwatch.com/2015/09/24/biologist-banned-by-second-publisher/

[5] Teixeira da Silva, J.A. (2013) The need for post-publication peer review in plant science publishing. Frontiers in Plant Science 4: Article 485, 3 pp.

http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpls.2013.00485/full

DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2013.00485

[6] Teixeira da Silva, J.A. (2015) A PPPR road-map for the plant sciences: cementing a road-worthy action plan. Journal of Educational and Social Research 5(2): 15-21. (and references therein)

http://www.mcser.org/journal/index.php/jesr/article/view/6551

DOI: 10.5901/jesr.2015.v5n2p15

On 2015 Sep 30, Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva commented:

As a plant scientist, I consider this editorial to be very important since the topic affects us all. It is also important because it is one of the few open attempts to address post-publication peer review (PPPR) in plant science at the editorial level, which is precisely where the issue of failed traditional peer review [1] needs to be reformed. So, in that sense, Prof. Michael R. Blatt must be applauded for bringing the issue to the discussion table. However, I have read some very valid concerns and criticisms [2, 3] in the public debate, one being on PubPeer. PubPeer is the PPPR commenting platform that Prof. Blatt is precisely being mostly critical of in his editorial. I personally am a supporter of the anonymous movement in science simply because I have seen such widely egregious failure, at many levels (manuscript processing, editing, peer review, publisher-induced errors, etc.), in a wide range of plant science journals in my short career. I am aware that there are a lot of very powerful individuals in the editorial boards of plant science journals whose best interests do not seem to be to serve science itself, or its integrity, but rather to be self-serving (NOTE: I am not in any way implying this about Prof. Blatt, about his editors or his journal, with which I have had no, or limited, experience). And I have also seen how anonymity has been able to point out errors and misconduct in the plant science literature, allowing it to be finally corrected.

In a publishing system that has documented failure in the editorial system, and where publisher retribution can take place for calling out editorial failure [4, for my most recent personal experience], I am of the opinion that the voice of the critic needs protection. As much as the protection offered the blind peer reviewer in traditional publishing. This is because the critic’s voice needs to be heard and not suppressed. And one form is through the anonymous voice. Unfortunately, I am also of the belief that the plant science community is still vastly conservative and that the image associated with anonymity is still very negative, as implied by the title of this editorial, namely vigilantism, also synonymously used with witch-hunting, snitching, etc. So, very broadly, those who complain, or point out errors, or who are critical of authors, published papers, editors or publishers, tend to be demonized, and their opinions shot down. This can, very practically speaking, have very negative consequences on a scientist’s career, because conventional wisdom in science publishing is that the traditional peer review and the final product, i.e., the published paper, are the product of a fail-safe process that is not meant to be challenged. Because this also implies a challenge on the publishing status quo. Yet, in practical terms, how does one criticize the work of an individual, face to face, in an email, for example, without facing negative consequences (personal and professional), even if the claims or concerns are valid? Thus, the purpose of me making this comment at PubMed Commons (which I should add was not easy for me to decide to do) is to indicate to the plant science community that they should not fear their own voices, or to associate their names with a critical opinion. They should also not fear the anonymous voices of critique or discontent. There should be the liberty by all plant scientists, irrespective of their rank, to comment freely, either by name or anonymously, even if the opinions vary widely. However, I caution, especially in public, to maintain a respectful tone always, and always leave open the option that there are widely different views.

I think that the impact of this editorial needs to sink in a bit more, to allow the plant science pool to absorb the central message, but also the possible flaws and short-falls associated with Prof. Blatt’s image of PPPR and the central importance of anonymity in PPPR.

In closing this commentary, I do have one personal critique of this editorial which I will personally relay to Prof. Blatt and the Plant Physiology editor board once my PubMed Commons comment has been published. If one enters the terms “post-publication peer review plant science” into Yahoo, Google, or some of the widely used scientific data-bases, several of my own papers will appear addressing this topic [e.g., 5, 6]. I find it very disturbing, and disconcerting, as a fellow plant scientist, that Prof Blatt has not referenced any one of these papers (even if they are mostly letters or opinion pieces) that I have written, because they are the de facto birth of the PPPR movement in plant science. This to me indicates that Prof. Blatt (and/or Plant Physiology editors) did not reference the literature fairly, correctly, or in a balanced way, in this editorial. This would then imply that the editorial may reflect professional or literature bias and that the editorial process may thus be flawed. One could then question if all editors at Plant Physiology were aware of this editorial, and if they approved of its content, before it was published. Even though editorials are not usually peer reviewed in a traditional sense of the word, I am concerned, given my own side-lined literature, as well as the very critical opinions stated at PubPeer and by Paul S. Brookes, that this editorial was not sufficiently vetted, or revised, before publication.

I sincerely hope that the wider plant science community may offer more comments at PubMed Commons or at PubPeer, by name or anonymously, because, in my opinion, this editorial highlights the cross-road in plant science, and science itself, where the future of academic integrity, accountability and transparency are meeting, i.e., with PPPR and the anonymous movement. I have been trying to bring this issue to the attention of plant scientists for some years now, and have been heavily criticized by some and silently praised by others. I am hopeful that perhaps, with Prof. Blatt’s editorial, that more awareness and pro-active discussion, can now take place, in the public arena. I look forward to seeing a spirited and passionate discussion, with the purpose of hammering out some positive proposals to “fix” the plant science literature which is, in my opinion, currently full of flaws (small and large) that have resulted from the failure of the traditional publishing system. I also welcome critiques to my views expressed herein (by name or anonymously).

References

[1] Teixeira da Silva, J.A., 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.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08989621.2014.899909#.VJXPV0oBg

DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2014.899909

[2] https://pubpeer.com/publications/209CA2DF493322A5B5470F3B8EEDA0

[3] http://www.psblab.org/?p=445

[4] http://retractionwatch.com/2015/09/24/biologist-banned-by-second-publisher/

[5] Teixeira da Silva, J.A. (2013) The need for post-publication peer review in plant science publishing. Frontiers in Plant Science 4: Article 485, 3 pp.

http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpls.2013.00485/full

DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2013.00485

[6] Teixeira da Silva, J.A. (2015) A PPPR road-map for the plant sciences: cementing a road-worthy action plan. Journal of Educational and Social Research 5(2): 15-21. (and references therein)

http://www.mcser.org/journal/index.php/jesr/article/view/6551

DOI: 10.5901/jesr.2015.v5n2p15

On 2015 Oct 02, Paul Brookes commented:

I wrote a blog post response to this rather inflammatory editorial. http://www.psblab.org/?p=445 The gist of it is, this article is an exercise in punching down.

On 2015 Oct 04, Michael R Blatt commented:

Dear Dr. da Silva,

Thank you for your comments. I am happy to discuss thoughtfully on the open forum of PubMed Commons. Like you, I reflected long and hard before writing my piece for precisely the reasons we are entering into this discussion: anonymity, fear, and scientific debate. Several of my closest colleagues expressed their anxieties that putting my head ‘above the social media parapet’ could have negative consequences for them. I, too, had my doubts but felt it important to raise concerns expressed to me by colleagues, young and old, which I share. I am therefore writing both in response to your invitation and generally to some of the comments posted to my editorial. I want to thank Philip Moriarty who I have come to know over the past week and who is much more eloquent than I could ever be, and Leonid Schneider who has shown true grace in stepping back from his initial cynicism to participate in the discussion.

I agree with your point that we should not fear to associate our names with critical opinion and, like Moriarty, I am dismayed by the lack of appetite to engage in open debate (note my emphasis on names and open). I am also deeply disturbed by the attitude of those who think that scientific critique is a license to ride roughshod into any discussion without once considering the possibility of a wider context or background to the questions at hand. At the most trivial level, it is easy – and cheap – to extract a few lines and twist them to the ridiculous; at the most fundamental, it shows an ignorance of social norms that make constructive debate possible. It’s no wonder that my colleagues were anxious and that there is fear within the community. They fear to engage because they do not want to become targets of the vitriol that pervades anonymous social media. To my mind, this is a sign that the “patient is not well” and I agree fully with the assessments of Moriarty, Schneider and others that our current approach to scientific exchange is deeply flawed in many ways.

So we come to your concerns: journal publication, PPPR, and anonymity. Here I must respectfully disagree with you on several points. Consider your starting premise, that “the final product, i.e. the published paper [is] the product of a failsafe process that is not meant to be challenged.” Surely, this flies in the face of scientific enquiry and one of the first lessons we all learn as students: to challenge ideas in order to progress understanding. Nor is publication a final product; it’s just the most visible at times. The real product of a body of work lies in its capacity to guide subsequent studies and predict their outcomes. As scientists, we subject our own work, and that of others, to scrutiny that either validates, discounts, or refines their outputs. The scientific literature is riddled with misconceptions, false conclusions, and ideas that failed this so-called ‘test of time’. And so it should be. As scientists, we put our work and ideas out into the community and, as a community, we improve and expand on each body of work. In short, publication is only one small step in the scientific process and always has been.

Second, let me stress that the purpose of editorial review is to assess a body of research, its scientific soundness, and whether it is of sufficient interest to the community – and, most important to the journal readership – to justify publication. Maintaining ethical standards is, of course, part of this task, but only one part of it. Nor is is the editorial process failsafe. No journal editor is able to catch all errors, innocent or otherwise, although on the whole editors are usually pretty good at identifying problems. I agree that there is a place for post-publication critique, including an element of quality control. I stated as much in my editorial.

What I cannot abide is PubPeer’s stance on anonymity, and I am angered by their efforts to masquerade as a site for open discussion that reflects the opinions of the scientific community. Both I consider to be fundamentally deceitful. I outlined my reasons in the editorial and these have been reiterated in several posts in response. Anonymity does not ‘level the playing field’; quite the contrary, it embeds inequality in any debate simply because one side is hidden. Furthermore, anonymity opens the door to all kinds of antisocial and nefarious behaviour. You need only read many of the comments posted in response to my editorial to see the innuendo and vitriol that was unleashed towards me as well as towards others posting on the site. Such verbal abuse belongs … well, let’s just say it does not belong in the public domain outside the schoolyard. Call me old-fashioned if you will, but in my book this is unnecessary, grubby and, what’s worse, counterproductive. For most people, the mob mentality behind this kind of behaviour is quite frightening. And like it or not, mob mentality is the framework of vigilantism. Is it any wonder, then, that so many of my colleagues, young and old, are fearful? Is this the kind of ‘scientific debate’, indeed the kind of society, we want to support? I don’t. It seems to me that anonymity in these circumstances is not the solution, but the problem. It is at the root of much that has gone terribly wrong in scientific exchange today.

I agree that there are some circumstances in which confidentiality (not anonymity!) is necessary to protect the identities of individuals, especially of whistleblowers (I’ll come to this point in a moment). However, the vast majority of posts on PubPeer do not fall in this category, even those which highlight one or more errors in a figure. I maintain that it is possible for a PhD student or postdoc to approach a colleague, even a senior scientist, in order to point out an error, and to do so in a way that is constructive and non-threatening. This is a vital social skill to learn. I shudder to think that, through ‘social’ media, this skill could be lost to the sound bite of a tweet. Like Julian Stirling (cited on PubPeer in several posts), I have no patience with lazy or conflicted thinking, and I welcome critical analysis when presented thoughtfully. I encourage my students and postdocs to question me, and others, all the time and, no surprise, the ones who have done so have also proven most successful when they leave my lab. I think you and others have vastly overstated the dangers of retribution, in part perhaps by conflating scientific debate and error correction with whistleblowing. They are not the same.

As for misconduct, of course whistleblowers need protection through confidentiality, but not through anonymity. Again, I have set out my reasoning in the editorial and will not reiterate here. Mechanisms are in place to provide confidentiality, in the first instance through the established channels of most journals. I agree, too, that if these fail, then there must be alternative mechanisms that allow legitimate concerns to be addressed effectively. I, for one, support efforts to ensure such alternatives. However, I do not agree that the answer is through a culture of secrecy and hearsay.

So how do we encourage thoughtful debate? How do we enable quality control and at the same time protect whistleblowers? I don’t pretend to have all the answers, but it is patently clear to me and many others that the answer is not through a so-called post-publication peer review process that is anonymous and, for all intents and purposes, unmoderated. Again, I point you to my editorial and the three challenges I have laid before PubPeer. I believe Stell and his colleagues have a real opportunity to lead the way in raising the tenor of science in this social media age, but they must address these challenges to do so.

Finally, to your personal critique, I appreciate that you have included reference to your own pieces, as I am sure other readers will too.

Thank you.

Mike Blatt

On 2015 Oct 05, Leonid Schneider commented:

Dear Dr. Blatt, reading your editorial again and again, I have the feeling that your primary issue is with the anonymous commenting on image/data irregularities, and less so about leading general academic discussions in the open. You have applied some interesting euphemisms for what some might consider as evidence of possible scientific misconduct. Thus, if you really think that whistle-blowing of potential data manipulations should go exclusively through "proper channels" and happen confidentially, you would be defending a broken system. You see, this approach has been tried for decades, with unsatisfactory results. But then again, what some perceive as potential data manipulations, you appear to see as utterly excusable. Thus I would appreciate if you were to clarify your position accordingly, maybe in a correction or an addendum to your editorial.

On 2015 Oct 05, Lydia Maniatis commented:

Dr. Blatt, I have one simple question. Dr. Texeira da Silva has been banned by scientific publishers because he openly, transparently, and honestly criticised them. Are you as angered by this as you are by the anonymity of PubPeer? Have you raised your voice against this unmitigated outrage, this clear and present danger to the open debate you say you advocate?

You ask: "how do we encourage thoughtful debate? How do we enable quality control and at the same time protect whistleblowers [and critics, I would add]?" Since you're against anonymity, I suggest that a good first step would be for people in your position - and you, specifically - to speak out in support of your courageous and banned colleague.

On 2015 Oct 06, Michael R Blatt commented:

Dear Lydia:- Please consider what you are asking. First, I run a small society journal (however prestigeous) that has no connection to the publishers of which you speak. My influence woulld be pretty close to zero. Second, I am not familiar with the details of Teixeira da Silva case. If you are asking me to speak out without knowledge, I don't believe is the correct thing to do. I'm sorry. Bests, Mike

On 2015 Oct 07, Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva commented:

Prof. Blatt, I have tremendous respect for you, as a plant scientist, particularly your work on SNAREs. I also have great respect for Plant Physiology, which has resisted thus far the temptations of being enveloped by the larger commercial STM publishers to turn intellect into profit rather than seeking the greater good of science. And that is why some parts of your editorial disappointed me. Beginning with the title. I have much to share and explain, ask and show, but before I get there, I'd like to take a step back, right to the beginning of your editorial, namely the title. I’d like to keep the conversation public.

And I would like to home in on one word "vigilante".

I am not quite convinced yet that you understand the full implications of what you have written. I am not even sure how such a respectable scientist seems to have lost his touch with the base. In order for me to explain my concerns, I would like to ask you, and those who will be reading this, to take a precious 100 minutes of their time to view the following 2015 movie. It is called Cartel Land. You can view it for free at viooz if you do not have access. In particular, I would like you to home-in on three sound-bites in that movie: 51 minutes, 87.5 minutes and 93.45-95.00 minutes.

After you have watched this movie, I would like to ask 2 questions: 1) Do you associate the anonymous science movement with vigilantism? 2) Does a vigilante scientist have to be anonymous?

Then, if possible, please read my own editorial and special issue: http://www.globalsciencebooks.info/JournalsSup/13AAJPSB_7_SI1.html In particular: http://www.globalsciencebooks.info/JournalsSup/images/2013/AAJPSB_7(SI1)/AAJPSB_7(SI1)5o.pdf

Now my 3rd question: Would you, Prof. Blatt, consider me, based on the title of your editorial, to be a science vigilante? When you reflect on this response, please keep in mind the following: http://retractionwatch.com/2014/04/10/following-personal-attacks-and-threats-elsevier-plant-journal-makes-author-persona-non-grata/ http://retractionwatch.com/2014/11/20/journal-retracts-paper-when-authors-refuse-to-pay-page-charges/ http://retractionwatch.com/2015/09/24/biologist-banned-by-second-publisher/

I look forward to your frank responses to my three questions so that we can continue this dialogue that affects the entire plant science community.

On 2015 Oct 07, Lydia Maniatis commented:

Dear Dr. Blatt: Please allow me to rephrase my question: Do you oppose, as a matter of principle, the banning of scientists from the scientific literature by corporations in retaliation for their speech? If not, then I can only surmise that you endorse the right of your own journal, and any journal, to ban troublesome critics. Is this correct? Ethically speaking, do you believe scientific publishers have the right to punish their critics in this way?

As he himself points out, the Texeira da Silva case is extremely pertinent to what we are discussing here. It shows that the system can effectively silence critics (that he stubbornly persists is to his credit, but he has been gravely disadvantaged). So as an ardent opponent of anonymous post-publication peer review, the choice you are proposing is this: a. Don't criticize the scientific establishment; b. Criticize by name, but don't expect members in good standing of said establishment to stand up for you - even when your scientific speech is censored in retaliation (what worse can happen to a scientist?). You will simply be neutralized if your criticism hits too close to the bone, and that will be OK with, for example, Dr. Michael Blatt. This isn't a case where an institution can fudge an excuse about irreconcilable differences – this is banning from the literature because a corporation wants to silence a critic! The situation could not be more clearcut, nor your reply more evasive.

In short, and with all due respect, you cannot play the innocent bystander in all this and still be a credible voice in the conversation. Anyone could be next. What if you were banned by PubPeer, for your opposition to anonymity? I suspect you would have something to say about that. I am not asking you to “speak out without knowledge,” but to inform yourself about, and take the proper action with regard to -at a minimum, express an opinion - facts that are, again, highly pertinent to the present conversation.

On 2015 Oct 14, Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva commented:

I think we need to give time to all parties to evaluate the need, or not, for anonymity. I personally believe that anonymous opinions are important, even if sometimes there are risks involved, simply because a large segment of scientists might be feeling afraid to comment openly by name, not because they are trying to hide, or to be malicous in any way, but simply because they are afraid. The fear of whistle-blowers, vigilantes and vigilant scientists who prefer to comment anonymously needs to be respected.

A few things: 1) A disclaimer. I have never met, or communicated with Lydia, below. 2) Prof. Blatt has given his personal assurances to enact reform and improve the system at Plant Physiology. This is an extremely positive thing, and an example we would pray for in so many other plant science journals. So, to be fair, Prof. Blatt should be given some space, and time, to fulfill his promises. The only aspect I am concerned that he might not consider, is to act upon the anonymous voice. 3) Given the real risks, as Lydia has pointed out, of abuse by publishers to silence the voices of critics, I have opened up a question at ResearchGate, namely: When should scientists be banned by journals and publishers?

http://www.researchgate.net/post/When_should_scientists_be_banned_by_journals_and_publishers

On 2015 Nov 01, Brandon Stell commented:

PubPeer has responded to this editorial in a post titled "Vigilant Scientists" http://blog.pubpeer.com/?p=200

On 2015 Dec 15, Gerhard Nebe-von-Caron commented:

a thought provoking editorial indeed. Do we want to foster an environment were people hide in anonymity or do we want to promote openness and honesty. To turn into anonymity is only showing that one has no faith in openness and honesty as one is not prepared to take a personal risk for its value. If they are however not the foundation of ones science, is what we do really science or a glorified marketing exercise?

On 2015 Dec 24, Michael R Blatt commented:

Dear Gerhard,

Thank you for your comment. Setting aside the issues of fraud and whistleblowing, I agree that there is no place for anonymous commenting in scientific debate.

Open debate is the cornerstone of scientific progress, especially in the "massively cooperative exercise" (to quote one of the PubPeer commenters) that is scientific research. Publication is only the beginning of scientific debate. Furthermore, contrary to arguments commonly raised about the flood of supposedly 'ultimately unreliable publications', history has shown time and again that progress often arises from what, in hindsight, is ultimately unreliable.

The SCIENCE article from 2011 that I referred to is a classic example. There was nothing fraudlent about the data presented at the time. It proved unreliable only in the hyperbole of its interpretation and it stimulated research leading to important insights about a transporter that scavenges phosphate in the presence of exceptionally high levels of the structurally similar arsenate anion.

Let us hope that this next generation of internet-literate scientists take the time to think through, and rectify, the conflated reasoning that has been promoted by certain elements behind PPPR.

Best regards,

Mike

On 2016 Mar 06, Boris Barbour commented:

The debate continues under Blatt's follow up editorial Blatt MR, 2016.