Sir

David M. Eagleman and Alex O. Holcombe in their Correspondence “Improving science through online commentary” (Nature 423, 15; 200310.1038/423015a) have proposed a web-based public arena for post-publication comment on scientific papers. Although we share these authors' concern that the slowness of peer-reviewed publication holds up comment and rapid (or even any) transmission of corrections, thereby impeding scientific progress, we believe that their proposed solution, a direct link between a website and PubMed entries, itself suffers from difficulties.

Perhaps the most worrisome issue is the likely prevalence of axe-grinding and hidden vested interests on a notice board that is meant for posting logical flaws, experimental weaknesses, questionable assumptions, alternative explanations and even non-replications. Although the proposed moderator could perhaps filter out overtly hostile or libellous notes, it is hard to imagine that he or she would be able to evaluate data adduced as evidence of non-replication.

The idea of post-hoc review is a good one, but Eagleman and Holcome's proposed model amounts to a free-for-all, which might encourage ill-considered comment with the potential for damaging worthy science and scientists. One alternative is to provide independent scientific assessment of published papers directly linked to PubMed, as in a subscription service in which we participate (see http://www.facultyof1000.com).