Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
, 14 (8), e1002547

Truth in Science Publishing: A Personal Perspective


Truth in Science Publishing: A Personal Perspective

Thomas C Südhof. PLoS Biol.


Scientists, public servants, and patient advocates alike increasingly question the validity of published scientific results, endangering the public's acceptance of science. Here, I argue that emerging flaws in the integrity of the peer review system are largely responsible. Distortions in peer review are driven by economic forces and enabled by a lack of accountability of journals, editors, and authors. One approach to restoring trust in the validity of published results may be to establish basic rules that render peer review more transparent, such as publishing the reviews (a practice already embraced by some journals) and monitoring not only the track records of authors but also of editors and journals.

Conflict of interest statement

The author has declared that no competing interests exist.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 3 articles


    1. Open Science Collaboration. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science. 2015; 349 10.1126/science.aac4716 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Allison DB, Brown AW, George BJ, Kaiser KA. Reproducibility: A tragedy of errors. Nature. 2016; 530: 27–29. 10.1038/530027a - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Südhof TC. Reproducibility: Experimental mismatch in neural circuits. Nature. 2015; 528: 338–339. 10.1038/nature16323 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Otchy TM, Wolff SBE, Rhee JY, Pehlevan C, Kawai R, Kempf A, et al. Acute off-target effects of neural circuit manipulations. Nature. 2015; 528: 358–363. 10.1038/nature16442 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Keuth Herbert (Ed.): Popper Karl. Logik der Forschung. Akademie-Verlag, Berlin: 2004, ISBN 3-05-004085-8.

Publication types