Advertisement

Improving publication quality and the importance of Post Publication Peer Review: The illustrating example of X chromosome analysis and calculation of forensic parameters

  • J.F. Ferragut
    Correspondence
    Corresponding author.
    Affiliations
    Institut Universitari d’Investigació en Ciències de la Salut (IUNICS) i Laboratori de Genètica, Departament de Biologia, Universitat de les Illes Balears, Spain
    Search for articles by this author
  • N. Pinto
    Affiliations
    IPATIMUP, Institute of Molecular Pathology and Immunology of the University of Porto, Porto, Portugal

    I3s, Instituto de Investigação e Inovação em Saúde, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal

    CMUP, Center of Mathematics of the University of Porto, Porto, Portugal
    Search for articles by this author
  • A. Amorim
    Affiliations
    IPATIMUP, Institute of Molecular Pathology and Immunology of the University of Porto, Porto, Portugal

    I3s, Instituto de Investigação e Inovação em Saúde, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal

    FCUP − Faculty of Sciences of the University of Porto, Portugal
    Search for articles by this author
  • A. Picornell
    Affiliations
    Institut Universitari d’Investigació en Ciències de la Salut (IUNICS) i Laboratori de Genètica, Departament de Biologia, Universitat de les Illes Balears, Spain
    Search for articles by this author
Published:November 10, 2018DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2018.11.006
      Promotion of scientific publications’ quality is a shared responsibility of Authors, Editors, Peers and Publishers [
      • Teixeira da Silva J.A.
      Debunking post-publication peer review.
      ]. Peer Review system, which has been understood as a major quality control instrument of scientific publications, has been under severe criticism for at least one decade [e.g.
      • Smith R.
      Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals.
      ,
      • Smith R.
      In search of an optimal peer review system.
      ,
      • Ware M.
      Peer review: recent experience and future directions.
      ,
      • Pierson C.A.
      Retractions in nursing literature: responsibilities of nurse authors, reviewers, and editors.
      ,
      • Franco E.L.
      • Shinder G.A.
      • Tota J.E.
      • Volesky K.
      • Isidean S.D.
      Journal editors as curators of scholarship: a case study in repairing the scientific record.
      ,
      • Wang T.
      • Xing Q.R.
      • Wang H.
      • Chen W.
      Retracted publications in the biomedical literature from open access journals.
      ,
      • Fanelli D.
      • Ioannidis J.P.A.
      • Goodman S.
      Improving the integrity of published science: an expanded taxonomy of retractions and corrections.
      ,
      • Kriegeskorte N.
      Open evaluation: a vision for entirely transparent post-publication peer review and rating for science.
      ,
      • Peterson G.I.
      Postpublication peer review: a crucial tool.
      ,
      • Glass D.J.
      • Flier J.S.
      Dealing with consequences of irreproducibility and modifying the published literature: retractions versus revisions.
      ,
      • Teixeira da Silva J.A.
      • Al-Khatib A.
      • Dobránszki J.
      Fortifying the corrective nature of post-publication peer review: identifying weaknesses, use of journal clubs, and rewarding conscientious behavior.
      ], in part due to an alarming (and growing) rate of corrections and retractions [e.g.
      • Pierson C.A.
      Retractions in nursing literature: responsibilities of nurse authors, reviewers, and editors.
      ,
      • Franco E.L.
      • Shinder G.A.
      • Tota J.E.
      • Volesky K.
      • Isidean S.D.
      Journal editors as curators of scholarship: a case study in repairing the scientific record.
      ,
      • Wang T.
      • Xing Q.R.
      • Wang H.
      • Chen W.
      Retracted publications in the biomedical literature from open access journals.
      ,
      • Fanelli D.
      • Ioannidis J.P.A.
      • Goodman S.
      Improving the integrity of published science: an expanded taxonomy of retractions and corrections.
      ]. Open evaluations have been proposed as an alternative [
      • Kriegeskorte N.
      Open evaluation: a vision for entirely transparent post-publication peer review and rating for science.
      ] while other supplementary systems have been used in the last years such as Post Publications Peer Review (PPPR) [
      • Peterson G.I.
      Postpublication peer review: a crucial tool.
      ,
      • Glass D.J.
      • Flier J.S.
      Dealing with consequences of irreproducibility and modifying the published literature: retractions versus revisions.
      ] and many initiatives (e.g. F1000,ResearchGate, PubPeer, Publons and PubMed Commons [
      • Peterson G.I.
      Postpublication peer review: a crucial tool.
      ,
      • Teixeira da Silva J.A.
      • Al-Khatib A.
      • Dobránszki J.
      Fortifying the corrective nature of post-publication peer review: identifying weaknesses, use of journal clubs, and rewarding conscientious behavior.
      ]) have been taken aiming to improve the peer reviewing quality and to make errors visible and, ultimately, corrected.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Forensic Science International: Genetics
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Teixeira da Silva J.A.
        Debunking post-publication peer review.
        Int. J. Ed. Inf. Tech. 2015; 1: 34-37
        • Smith R.
        Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals.
        J. R. Soc. Med. 2006; 99: 178-182
        • Smith R.
        In search of an optimal peer review system.
        J. Particip. Med. 2009; 1: e13
        • Ware M.
        Peer review: recent experience and future directions.
        New Rev. Inf. Network. 2011; 16: 23-53
        • Pierson C.A.
        Retractions in nursing literature: responsibilities of nurse authors, reviewers, and editors.
        J. Am. Assoc. Nurse Pract. 2018; 30: 115-116
        • Franco E.L.
        • Shinder G.A.
        • Tota J.E.
        • Volesky K.
        • Isidean S.D.
        Journal editors as curators of scholarship: a case study in repairing the scientific record.
        Prev. Med. 2018; 110: 114-115
        • Wang T.
        • Xing Q.R.
        • Wang H.
        • Chen W.
        Retracted publications in the biomedical literature from open access journals.
        Sci. Eng. Ethics. 2018; : 1-14https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-018-0040-6
        • Fanelli D.
        • Ioannidis J.P.A.
        • Goodman S.
        Improving the integrity of published science: an expanded taxonomy of retractions and corrections.
        Eur. J. Clin. Invest. 2018; 48https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.12898
        • Kriegeskorte N.
        Open evaluation: a vision for entirely transparent post-publication peer review and rating for science.
        Front. Comput. Neurosci. 2012; 6: 79
        • Peterson G.I.
        Postpublication peer review: a crucial tool.
        Science. 2018; 359: 1225-1226
        • Glass D.J.
        • Flier J.S.
        Dealing with consequences of irreproducibility and modifying the published literature: retractions versus revisions.
        Cell Metab. 2017; 26: 695-696
        • Teixeira da Silva J.A.
        • Al-Khatib A.
        • Dobránszki J.
        Fortifying the corrective nature of post-publication peer review: identifying weaknesses, use of journal clubs, and rewarding conscientious behavior.
        Sci. Eng. Ethics. 2017; 23: 1213-1226
        • Karl S.A.
        • Toonen R.J.
        • Grant W.S.
        • Bowen B.W.
        Common misconceptions in molecular ecology: echoes of the modern synthesis.
        Mol. Ecol. 2012; 21: 4171-4189
        • Bedeian A.G.
        The manuscript review process: the proper roles of authors, referees, and editor.
        J. Manag. Inq. 2003; 12: 331-338
        • Schenekar T.
        • Weiss S.
        High rate of calculation errors in mismatch distribution analysis results in numerous false inferences of biological importance.
        Heredity. 2011; 107: 511-512
        • Coble M.D.
        • Buckleton J.
        • Butler J.M.
        • Egeland T.
        • Fimmers R.
        • Gill P.
        • et al.
        DNA Commission of the International Society for Forensic Genetics: recommendations on the validation of software programs performing biostatistical calculations for forensic genetics applications.
        Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2016; 25: 191-197
        • Carracedo A.
        • Butler J.M.
        • Gusmão L.
        • Parson W.
        • Roewer L.
        • Schneider P.M.
        Publication of population data for forensic purposes.
        Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2010; 4: 145-147
        • Poetsch M.
        • Bajanowski T.
        • Pfeiffer H.
        The publication of population genetic data in the International Journal of Legal Medicine: guidelines.
        Int. J. Legal Med. 2012; 126: 489-490
        • Gusmão L.
        • Butler J.M.
        • Linacre A.
        • Parson W.
        • Roewer L.
        • Schneider P.M.
        • et al.
        Revised guidelines for the publication of genetic population data.
        Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2017; 30: 160-163
        • Buckleton J.
        • Curran J.
        • Goudet J.
        • Taylor D.
        • Thiery A.
        • Weir B.S.
        Population-specific FST values for forensic STR markers: a worldwide survey.
        Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2016; 23: 91-100
        • Desmarais D.
        • Zhong Y.
        • Chakraborty R.
        • Perreault C.
        • Busque L.
        Development of a highly polymorphic STR marker for identity testing purposes at the human androgen receptor gene (HUMARA).
        J. Forensic Sci. 1998; 43: 1046-1049
        • Szibor R.
        • Krawczak M.
        • Hering S.
        • Edelmann J.
        • Kuhlisch E.
        • Krause M.
        Use of X-linked markers for forensic purposes.
        Int. J. Legal Med. 2003; 117: 67-74
        • Pinto N.
        • Gusmão L.
        • Egeland T.
        • Amorim A.
        Paternity exclusion power: comparative behaviour of autosomal and X-chromosomal markers in standard and deficient cases with inbreeding.
        Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2013; 7: 290-295
        • Brenner C.
        • Morris J.
        Paternity index calculations in single locus hypervariable DNA probes: validation and other studies.
        Proceedings for the International Symposium on Human Identification. Promega Corporation, 1989
        • Cainé L.
        • Carvalho R.
        • Costa S.
        • Pereira M.F.
        • Pinheiro M.F.
        Interest of X chromosome (Argus X-12 kit) in complex kinship analysis.
        Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. Sup. Ser. 2011; 3: e206-e207
        • Turrina S.
        • Filippini G.
        • De Leo D.
        Population genetic evaluation of 12 X-chromosomal short tandem repeats of Investigator Argus X-12 kit in North-East Italy.
        Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. Sup. Ser. 2011; 3: e327-e328
        • Ferragut J.F.
        • Bentayebi K.
        • Castro J.A.
        • Ramon C.
        • Picornell A.
        Genetic analysis of 12 X-chromosome STRs in Western Mediterranean populations.
        Int. J. Legal Med. 2015; 129: 253-255
        • Zhang Y.D.
        • Shen C.M.
        • Meng H.T.
        • Guo Y.X.
        • Dong Q.
        • Yang G.
        • et al.
        Allele and haplotype diversity of new multiplex of 19 ChrX-STR loci in Han population from Guanzhong region (China).
        Electrophoresis. 2016; 37: 1669-1675
        • He G.
        • Li Y.
        • Zou X.
        • Zhang Y.
        • Li H.
        • Wang M.
        • et al.
        X-chromosomal STR-based genetic structure of Sichuan Tibetan minority ethnicity group and its relationships to various groups.
        Int. J. Legal Med. 2018; 132: 409-413
        • Ferragut J.F.
        • Bentayebi K.
        • Pereira R.
        • Castro J.A.
        • Amorim A.
        • Ramon C.
        • et al.
        Genetic portrait of Jewish populations based on three sets of X-chromosome markers: indels, Alu insertions and STRs.
        Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2017; 31: e5-e11
        • Robino C.
        • Lacerenza D.
        • Aneli S.
        • Di Gaetano C.
        • Matullo G.
        • Robledo R.
        • et al.
        Allele and haplotype diversity of 12 X-STRs in Sardinia.
        Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2018; 33: e1-e3
        • Tillmar O.
        • Kling D.
        • Butler J.M.
        • Parson W.
        • Prinz M.
        • Schneider P.M.
        • et al.
        DNA Commission of the International Society for Forensic Genetics (ISFG): guidelines on the use of X-STRs in kinship analysis.
        Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2017; 29: 269-275
        • Medina-Acosta E.
        Evidence of partial and weak gametic disequilibrium across clusters of pericentromeric short tandem repeats loci on human X chromosome: proceed with caution in forensic genetics.
        Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2011; 5: 545-547
        • Siegert S.L.
        • Roewer L.
        • Nothnagel M.
        Shannon’s equivocation for forensic Y-STR marker selection.
        Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2015; 16: 216-225