What’s the best platform for post publication peer review? @pubpeer.com ?
Sep 25, 2025 at 9:07 PM
byline.pub is now live in beta
A home for indie authors on the AT Protocol. Publish your work and become easier to discover across the open social web.
byline.pub is now live in beta
A home for indie authors on the AT Protocol. Publish your work and become easier to discover across the open social web.
Reviewing post-publication peer review
Post-publication peer review (PPPR) is transforming how the life sciences community evaluates published manuscripts and data. Unsurprisingly, however, PPPR is experiencing growing pains, and some elements of the process distinct from standard pre-publication review remain controversial. I discuss the rapid evolution of PPPR, its impact, and the challenges associated with it.
Single-Source Publishing Community
Join the Single-Source Publishing Community for open, interoperable, and sustainable scholarly publishing workflows.
Science discussions of retracted articles on Bluesky: public...
Post-publication peer review (PPPR) has emerged as an important supplement to traditional peer review, with social media playing a growing role in publicising potential problems in published...
You can just review things: A digital ethnography of informal peer review
Across scholarly communities, manuscripts face similar evaluative rituals: editors invite experts to privately assess submissions through formal peer reviews. This closed, loosely structured, and...
pub search / recommended
most-recommended posts across atproto publishing platforms
Peer Review at the Crossroads
Peer review has long been regarded as a cornerstone of scholarly communication, ensuring high quality and credibility of published research. Although academic journals trace their origins back three centuries, the procedures for evaluating submissions, particularly peer review, have undergone continuous evolvement. Peer review’s formal institutionalization in the mid-20th century represents a significant, yet natural, phase in this ongoing transformation of scholarly communication. By the early 21st century, there emerged an opinion that the conventional model of peer review faces systematic challenges, including inefficiency, bias, and institutional inertia. The study aims to synthesize the evolution, practices, and outcomes of both conventional and innovative peer review models in scholarly publishing. Through a mixed-methods approach combining interpretative literature review and process modeling (Business Process Model and Notation –BPMN), it identifies four frameworks: pre-publication peer review, registered reports, modular publishing, and the Publish-Review-Curate (PRC) model. While the PRC model, which integrates preprints with post-publication review, demonstrates advantages in transparency and accessibility, no single approach emerges as universally ideal. The choice of model depends on disciplinary context, resource availability, and institutional priorities. The analysis underscores the need for adaptable platforms that enable hybrid workflows, balancing rigor with inclusivity. Future research must address empirical gaps in evaluating these innovations, particularly their long-term impact on equity and epistemic norms.
Chad Kohalyk (@chadkoh@indieweb.social)
Web publishing is facing its next challenge: a new iteration of centralizing platforms. BUT there is also a new wave of open protocols and standards that can help us gain our independence. Next month in NYC we are gathering a group of frontier technologists and popular web publishers to discuss how we can sail into this next platform shift as captains. #ProtocolsForPublishers https://pfp.unternet.co
Early update on Arcadia publishing 2.0: Scientists are in charge, speed is an issue
Since starting v2 of our publishing model to restore scientist agency, pub “quality” has been similar, and this approach is more efficient overall. The major downside is that pubs take longer. We’re pursuing solutions to this and other problems but feel we’re on the right track.
I've been absolutely swamped lately, but thanks to the atproto community, @sequoia.pub hasn't slowed down! Here's a quick rundown: A <sequoia-subscribe> web component that lets readers create a site.standard.graph.subscription record for your publication. Huge thanks to @heaths.dev for this!
Wish there was a better academic publishing system? Bluesky and its underlying ATProto technology, along with services like @chive.pub and the broader @atproto.science ecosystem, could do the job. #AcademicSky 🧪 leaflet.pub/2f431faf-c125-4d34-ac52-e41a2…
Each academic paper should have its own Bluesky account
leaflet.pub
Chive
We're ramping up our alpha, and we'd love for you to join at chive.pub! Since we launched back in January, we've been adding a ton of fun features; and to introduce them, we're going to be doing a series of deep dives over the next couple weeks on chive.leaflet.pub.
I said I was busy. I’m the dev behind byline.pub, now live in beta (rough BETA 😉). I've added my books. I’m building it on the AT Protocol because I think indie authors deserve a better public home for their work than scattered links and platform profiles. I’d love your feedback: byline.pub
byline.pub is now live in beta
byline.pub
