Abstract:Scientists who engage in science and the scientific endeavor should seek truth with conviction of morals and commitment to ethics. While the number of publications continues to increase, the number of retractions has increased at a faster rate. Journals publish fraudulent research papers despite claims of peer review and adherence to publishing ethics. Nevertheless, appropriate ethical peer review will remain a gatekeeper when selecting research manuscripts in scholarly publishing and approving research applications for grant funding. However, this peer review must become more open, fair, transparent, equitable, and just with new recommendations and guidelines for reproducible and accountable reviews that support and promote fair citation and citational justice. We should engineer this new peer-review process with modern informatics technology and information science to provide and defend better safeguards for truth and integrity, to clarify and maintain the provenance of information and ideas, and to rebuild and restore trust in scholarly research institutions. Indeed, this new approach will be necessary in the current post-truth era to counter the ease and speed with which mis-information, dis-information, anti-information, caco-information, and mal-information spread through the internet, web, news, and social media. The most important question for application of new peer-review methods to these information wars should be ‘Who does what when?’ in support of reproducible and accountable reviews. Who refers to the authors, reviewers, editors, and publishers as participants in the review process. What refers to disclosure of the participants' identities, the material content of author manuscripts and reviewer commentaries, and other communications between authors and reviewers. When refers to tracking the sequential points in time for which disclosure of whose identity, which content, and which communication at which step of the peer-review process for which audience of readers and reviewers. We believe that quality peer review, and peer review of peer review, must be motivated and maintained by elevating their status and prestige to an art and a science. Both peer review itself and peer review analyses of peer reviews should be incentivised by publishing peer reviews as citable references separately from the research report reviewed while crossreferenced and crosslinked to the report reviewed.

Better nanoscience through open, collaborative, and critical discussions

Science 3.0: Corrections to the Science 2.0 paradigm

Open science challenges, benefits and tips in early career and beyond

Promoting an open research culture

The role of Open Science in our research

Open Science in Software Engineering

Motivating and Maintaining Ethics, Equity, Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Expertise in Peer Review

The existence of stealth corrections in scientific literature -- a threat to scientific integrity

The changing roles of scientific journals

A harm reduction approach to improving peer review by acknowledging its imperfections

Readership awareness series – Paper 8: Research ethics and 'editorial expressions of concern'

Open and reproducible neuroimaging: From study inception to publication

Reproducibility, Replicability, and Transparency in Research: What 430 Professors Think in Universities across the USA and India

Spinning the web of open science

Publisher Correction: on the Issue of Transparency and Reproducibility in Nanomedicine.

Sustainable computational science: the ReScience initiative

Open science practices among authors published in complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine journals: An international, cross-sectional survey

Messing with Merton: The intersection between open science practices and Mertonian values

Navigating the Science System: Research Integrity and Academic Survival Strategies

Improving Software Citation and Credit

Fostering openness in open science: An ethical discussion of risks and benefits