The so-called Ingelfinger rule inhibits open science, as biomedical researchers are prohibited from sharing and discussing their results before they are published in mainstream journals. If they do, the journals might refuse to publish them. However, in other areas of science, this is not an issue. The open access repository, arXiv, is used by researchers in physics, mathematics, computer science, and even quantitative biology to publish papers before they are submitted to journals. Critics claim that papers may be inaccurate because of the lack of peer review. But is peer review in any way a guarantee of accuracy? Remember the arsenic life story? What about the bias of referees? Why not embrace post-publication peer review by the entire scientific communities instead of a select few? Wouldn’t that be a real step towards real open science?
Please feel free to share some of your thoughts below!