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, as noted by Retraction Watch. Contrary to most platforms, it allows anonymous post-publication commenting, a controversial feature which is the main factor for its success. Consequently, accusations of libel have been levelled at some of PubPeer's users; correspondingly the website now requires commentators to use only facts that can be publicly verified.
- "Researcher admits mistakes in stem cell study". Phys.org. May 2013.
- Sven Stockrahm; Lydia Klöckner; Dagny Lüdemann (2013-05-23). "Zellbiologe gibt Fehler in Klonstudie zu". Zeit.
- "Stem cell cloner acknowledges errors in ground breaking paper". Nature.
- "Stapgate shows Japan must get back to basics in science". Japan Times.
- "Leading diabetes researcher corrects paper as more than a dozen studies are questioned on PubPeer". Retraction Watch. 12 January 2015. Retrieved 17 May 2017.
- 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.
- Paul Jump (13 November 2014). "Can post-publication peer review endure?". Times Higher Education. Retrieved 5 December 2014.
- Peer 0 (24 August 2014). "PubPeer's first legal threat" (blog). Retrieved 5 December 2014. Cite journal requires
- "PubPeer - How to comment on PubPeer". pubpeer. Archived from the original on 15 November 2016. Retrieved 17 May 2017.
- Couzin-Frankel, Jennifer (31 August 2015). "PubPeer's secret is out: Founder of controversial website reveals himself". Science AAAS. Retrieved 3 January 2021.
- PubPeer Selections on Retraction Watch