PubPeer

PubPeer
URLhttps://pubpeer.com
Launched2012

PubPeer is a website that allows users to discuss and review scientific research after publication, i.e. post-publication peer review.

The site has served as a whistleblowing platform, in that it highlighted shortcomings in several high-profile papers, in some cases leading to retractions and to accusations of scientific fraud,[1][2][3][4] as noted by Retraction Watch.[5] Contrary to most platforms, it allows anonymous post-publication commenting, a controversial feature which is the main factor for its success.[6] Consequently, accusations of libel have been levelled at some of PubPeer's users;[7][8] correspondingly the website has since 2016 told commentators to use only facts that can be publicly verified.[9]

See also

References

  1. ^ "Researcher admits mistakes in stem cell study". Phys.org. May 2013.
  2. ^ Sven Stockrahm; Lydia Klöckner; Dagny Lüdemann (2013-05-23). "Zellbiologe gibt Fehler in Klonstudie zu". Zeit.
  3. ^ "Stem cell cloner acknowledges errors in ground breaking paper". Nature.
  4. ^ "Stapgate shows Japan must get back to basics in science". Japan Times.
  5. ^ "Leading diabetes researcher corrects paper as more than a dozen studies are questioned on PubPeer". Retraction Watch. 12 January 2015. Retrieved 17 May 2017.
  6. ^ Torny, Didier (February 2018). Pubpeer: vigilante science, journal club or alarm raiser? The controversies over anonymity in post-publication peer review. International Conference on Peer Review.
  7. ^ Paul Jump (13 November 2014). "Can post-publication peer review endure?". Times Higher Education. Retrieved 5 December 2014.
  8. ^ Peer 0 (24 August 2014). "PubPeer's first legal threat" (blog). Retrieved 5 December 2014.{cite web}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  9. ^ "PubPeer - How to comment on PubPeer". pubpeer. Archived from the original on 15 November 2016. Retrieved 17 May 2017.

Further reading

External links