Scientific Peer Review Is Broken – Fighting to Fix It with Anonymity

"A prominent cancer scientist, unhappy with the attention his research papers have received on PubPeer, is suing some of our anonymous commenters for defamation."

That's a third-party, who is not a government organization, suing PubPeer to de-anonyomize a commenter on PubPeer's site.

"Dendrite International, Inc., a purveyor of computer software used in the pharmaceutical industry, brought a John Doe lawsuit against individuals who had anonymously posted criticisms of the company on a Yahoo message board. When Presiding Chancery Judge Kenneth MacKenzie rejected one of Dendrite's requests to compel Yahoo to reveal the identity of an anonymous defendant, Dendrite appealed."

That's a third party, Dendrite, who is not a government organization, suing Yahoo to de-anonyomize a commenter on Yahoo's site.

If Yahoo wanted to, they could turn that information over. The question was, could Dendrite compel Yahoo to do so if Yahoo didn't want to. And the answer is that there's a First Amendment issue which must be considered, so the answer is "sometimes."

Yahoo didn't want to. And PubPeer doesn't want to.

So I don't understand why you are bringing up first party actions (actions that Yahoo and PubPeer are free to do) when the issue is what third party actions may compel them to do.

http://private-idp.appspot.com/

https://code.google.com/p/pseudoid/

http://blind-signer.appspot.com/

I haven't touched it for years and it looks like the login flow is broken now with the demo sites.

Also, this uses unsafe server-side JS crypto for demo purposes only.

Our approach is to focus on turning review of all kinds (including both pre- and post-publication) into a measurable research output -- something you can add to your resume. We support both anonymous and signed review with the idea that it will lead to greater transparency in the long run and also motivate reviewers to contribute more.

We have a significant number of both types of review now and are starting to look ways to measure if there are significant differences between blind and open review.

The plausible evidence of persistent research misconduct in this case seems to be a reasonable basis for someone not to get a new job with more research responsibilities, so there may not be any actual harm to the plaintiff here. The defense of truth is strong in a defamation case.

Yep. But there is a reason it is this way, which is that to be successul on the academic feeding trough/career path, you have to serve on PC committees and you have to publish a lot of papers.

> There is a very real possibility of work being accepted or rejected purely because of what the reviewer thinks will be most beneficial to their career.

I think this is right, but it's less often so work can be scooped, and more often about building up your "camp." As a research professor, you need your area of expertise to be popular and you need to get a lot of citations for your work. You want to be a leader in an area that actually matters, where your definition of "actually matters" is actually purely herd mentality: what do other people consider to be important? So you want to reject work that bolsters your camp, cites you, etc., and reject work that poses a threat to the ascendancy of your area of expertise.