Editing PubPeer

{{Wikipedia fork
| article_name = PubPeer
}}
{{short description|Scientific review website}}
{{Infobox website
| name        = PubPeer
| logo        = 
| launch_date = 2012
| url = {{url|https://pubpeer.com}}
}}

'''PubPeer''' is a website that allows users to discuss and review scientific research after publication, i.e. [[Peer review#Postpublication reviews|post-publication peer review]], established in 2012.

The site has served as a [[whistleblowing]] platform, in that it highlighted shortcomings in several high-profile papers, in some cases leading to [[retractions in academic publishing|retractions]] and to accusations of [[scientific fraud]],<ref>{{cite news |date=23 May 2013 |title=Researcher admits mistakes in stem cell study |url=https://phys.org/news/2013-05-stem-cell.html |work=Phys.org}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.zeit.de/wissen/gesundheit/2013-05/klonen-studie-fehler-mitalipov-reaktion|title=Zellbiologe gibt Fehler in Klonstudie zu|date=2013-05-23|author=Sven Stockrahm|author2=Lydia Klöckner|author3=[[Dagny Lüdemann]]|work=Zeit}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Cyranoski |first1=David |last2=Check Hayden |first2=Erika |date=2013-05-23 |title=Stem-cell cloner acknowledges errors in groundbreaking paper |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2013.13060 |journal=Nature |language=en |doi=10.1038/nature.2013.13060 |issn=1476-4687}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Otake |first=Tomoko |date=2014-04-20 |title='STAPgate' shows Japan must get back to basics in science |url=https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/04/20/national/stapgate-shows-japan-must-get-back-to-basics-in-science/ |access-date=2024-08-31 |website=The Japan Times |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Singh Chawla |first=Dalmeet |date=2024-04-29 |title=How reliable is this research? Tool flags papers discussed on PubPeer |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-01247-6 |journal=Nature |language=en |volume=629 |issue=8011 |pages=271–272 |doi=10.1038/d41586-024-01247-6|pmid=38684831 |bibcode=2024Natur.629..271S }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Ordway |first=Denise-Marie |date=2023-08-01 |title=5 tips for using PubPeer to report on research and the scientific community |url=https://journalistsresource.org/home/pubpeer-research-misconduct-tips-journalists/ |access-date=2024-08-31 |website=The Journalist's Resource |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Citation |last1=Barbour |first1=Boris |title=PubPeer: Scientific Assessment Without Metrics |date=2020-01-28 |work=Gaming the Metrics |pages=149–156 |editor-last=Biagioli |editor-first=Mario |url=https://direct.mit.edu/books/book/4598/chapter/211141/PubPeer-Scientific-Assessment-Without-Metrics |access-date=2024-08-31 |publisher=The MIT Press |language=en |doi=10.7551/mitpress/11087.003.0015 |isbn=978-0-262-35656-5 |last2=Stell |first2=Brandon M. |editor2-last=Lippman |editor2-first=Alexandra}}</ref>
as noted by [[Retraction Watch]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://retractionwatch.com/2015/01/12/leading-diabetes-researcher-corrects-paper-dozen-studies-questioned-pubpeer/|title=Leading diabetes researcher corrects paper as more than a dozen studies are questioned on PubPeer|date=12 January 2015|publisher=|accessdate=17 May 2017|work=Retraction Watch}}</ref> Contrary to most platforms, it allows anonymous post-publication commenting, a controversial feature which is the main factor for its success.<ref>{{Cite conference|url=https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01700198|title=Pubpeer: vigilante science, journal club or alarm raiser? The controversies over anonymity in post-publication peer review|last=Torny|first=Didier|date=February 2018|conference=International Conference on Peer Review}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Teixeira da Silva |first=Jaime A. |date=2018-01-01 |title=The opacity of the PubPeer Foundation: what PubPeer's "About" page tells us |url=https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/OIR-06-2017-0191/full/html |journal=Online Information Review |volume=42 |issue=2 |pages=282–287 |doi=10.1108/OIR-06-2017-0191 |issn=1468-4527}}</ref> Consequently, accusations of libel have been levelled at some of PubPeer's users;<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/can-post-publication-peer-review-endure/2016895.article|work=Times Higher Education | title=Can post-publication peer review endure? | date=13 November 2014 | accessdate=5 December 2014 | author=Paul Jump}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web | url=https://pubpeer.com/topics/1/3F5792FF283A624FB48E773CAAD150 | title=PubPeer's first legal threat | date=24 August 2014 | accessdate=5 December 2014 | format=blog}}</ref> correspondingly the website has since 2016 told commentators to use only facts that can be publicly verified.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://pubpeer.com/howto|title=PubPeer - How to comment on PubPeer|website=pubpeer|accessdate=17 May 2017|url-status=dead|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20161115164005/https://pubpeer.com/howto|archivedate=15 November 2016}}</ref>

Questions have been raised about the copyright ownership of PubPeers often anonymous contents.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Silva |first=Jaime A. Teixeira da |date=2018-07-01 |title=The Issue of Comment Ownership and Copyright at PubPeer |url=https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail/1013090x-201807-201809140001-201809140001-227-237 |journal=教育資料與圖書館學 |volume=55 |issue=2 |pages=227–237 |doi=10.6120/JoEMLS.201807_55(2).e001.BC.BE}}</ref>

In 2021 a study found that "more than two-thirds of comments [on PubPeer] are posted to report some type of misconduct, mainly about [[image manipulation]]". [[Health sciences]] and [[life sciences]] were shown to have most comments, and most comments reporting [[publishing fraud]] and [[data manipulation]]. [[Social science]] and [[humanities]] disciplines in turn had fewer comments, but the highest percentage comments about critical reviews about theory and highlight [[Methodology|methodological]] flaws. The research concluded that "while biochemists access the site to report misconduct... social scientists and humanists use it to discuss conclusions and detect methodological errors". The study also reported that 85.6% of comment are anonymous and that "only 31.5% of publications received more than three comments, and the response rate of authors is very low (7.5%)."<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Ortega |first=José Luis |date=May 2022 |title=Classification and analysis of PubPeer comments: How a web journal club is used |journal=Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology |language=en |volume=73 |issue=5 |pages=655–670 |doi=10.1002/asi.24568 |issn=2330-1635|doi-access=free }}</ref>

In 2023 a study found that "only 21.5% of the articles [flagged on PubPeer] that deserve an editorial notice (i.e., honest errors, methodological flaws, publishing fraud, manipulation) were corrected by the [relevant] journal".<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Ortega |first1=José-Luis |last2=Delgado-Quirós |first2=Lorena |date=2023-01-23 |title=How do journals deal with problematic articles. Editorial response of journals to articles commented in PubPeer |url=https://revista.profesionaldelainformacion.com/index.php/EPI/article/view/87096 |journal=Profesional de la información |language=en |volume=32 |issue=1 |doi=10.3145/epi.2023.ene.18 |issn=1699-2407|hdl=10261/362437 |hdl-access=free }}</ref>

In November 2024, PubPeer and its co-Founder, Brandon Stell, received the Institutional Award for research integrity from the Einstein Foundation (Germany).<ref>{{Cite web |title=Einstein Foundation Awards |url=https://award.einsteinfoundation.de/award-winners-finalists/recipients-2024/pubpeer |access-date=2024-12-12 |website=award.einsteinfoundation.de}}</ref>

==See also==
{{Scholia}}
* [[Open peer review]]
* [[Journal club]]
* [[JournalReview.org]]
* [[Publons]]

==References==
{{Reflist}}

== Further reading ==
* {{cite news |last1=Couzin-Frankel |first1=Jennifer |title=PubPeer's secret is out: Founder of controversial website reveals himself |url=https://www.science.org/content/article/pubpeer-s-secret-out-founder-controversial-website-reveals-himself |access-date=3 January 2021 |work=Science AAAS |date=31 August 2015 |language=en}}

== External links ==
* [http://retractionwatch.com/category/pubpeer-selections/ PubPeer Selections] on Retraction Watch

{{DEFAULTSORT:PubPeer}}
[[Category:Academic publishing]]
[[Category:Peer review]]
[[Category:Scientific method]]
[[Category:Criticism of academia]]
[[Category:Internet properties established in 2012]]
[[Category:Open science]]
[[Category:Internet forums]]