Editors' note: Disputes, debates, dialogue, and dodgers

Abstract

It is in part because of the limitations inherent to peer review and in part the speed at which scientific progress may outpace the published literature that the Disputes & Debates section exists. As a channel through which investigators, clinical practitioners, and fellow researchers can engage in open dialog, the Disputes & Debates section allows for expedited correspondence—and yes, debate—regarding previously published material. Dr. Gupta highlights some of the advantages to this form of postpublication peer review, including one major threat to publication: research rivalry. Dr. Dasheiff concurs with the benefits afforded by this means of scientific communication but questions the added value of some of the Editor's Choice comments. While our role as authors of the Editor's Choice commentaries may seem superfluous, we believe our unbiased perspective lends a great advantage to this form of postpublication peer review. It is a rare circumstance in which an author's conflict(s) of interest are not appropriately declared, or if there is an egregious error found in publication, but we would agree with Dr. Dasheiff that these circumstances would be opportunities for our commentaries. As an editorial team, we have also made an effort to explore new ways to concisely and appropriately incorporate our personal interpretations, opinions, and experiences into these abbreviated summaries. It is in part because of the limitations inherent to peer review and in part the speed at which scientific progress may outpace the published literature that the Disputes & Debates section exists. As a channel through which investigators, clinical practitioners, and fellow researchers can engage in open dialog, the Disputes & Debates section allows for expedited correspondence—and yes, debate—regarding previously published material. Dr. Gupta highlights some of the advantages to this form of postpublication peer review, including one major threat to publication: research rivalry. Dr. Dasheiff concurs with the benefits afforded by this means of scientific communication but questions the added value of some of the Editor's Choice comments. While our role as authors of the Editor's Choice commentaries may seem superfluous, we believe our unbiased perspective lends a great advantage to this form of postpublication peer review. It is a rare circumstance in which an author's conflict(s) of interest are not appropriately declared, or if there is an egregious error found in publication, but we would agree with Dr. Dasheiff that these circumstances would be opportunities for our commentaries. As an editorial team, we have also made an effort to explore new ways to concisely and appropriately incorporate our personal interpretations, opinions, and experiences into these abbreviated summaries.