# Better nanoscience through open, collaborative, and critical discussions

## TL;DR

This paper discusses how open and collaborative discussions can improve the quality of scientific research, especially in nanoscience.

## Contribution

The paper introduces post-publication peer review as a novel approach to enhance scientific self-correction.

## Key findings

- Scientific publications often contain errors that need correction.
- Post-publication peer review can help improve the accuracy of scientific findings.
- Collaborative discussions are essential for maintaining rigorous scientific standards.

## Abstract

We aim to foster a discussion of science correction and of how individual researchers can improve the quality and control of scientific production. This is crucial because although the maintenance of rigorous standards and the scrupulous control of research findings and methods are sometimes taken for granted, in practice, we are routinely confronted with articles that contain errors.

Material science publications are the outcome of research, but they can contain errors. We advocate for post publication peer review as a way to collectively improve self-correction of science.