PubPeer
| File:PubPeer.jpg | |
| URL | http://www.pubpeer.com |
|---|---|
| Launched | 2012 |
PubPeer is a website that allows users to discuss and review scientific research.
The site is one of many allowing academics to engage in post-publication peer review, and has 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 PubPeer comments are required to use only facts that can be publicly verified.[9]
See also
References
- ^ "researcher admits mistakes in stem cell study".
- ^ http://www.zeit.de/wissen/gesundheit/2013-05/klonen-studie-fehler-mitalipov-reaktion.
{{cite news}}: Missing or empty|title=(help) - ^ "Stem cell cloner acknowledges errors in ground breaking paper".
- ^ "Stapgate shows Japan must get back to basics in science".
- ^ "Leading diabetes researcher corrects paper as more than a dozen studies are questioned on PubPeer". 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".
- ^ 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 web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) - ^ "PubPeer - How to comment on PubPeer". pubpeer.com. Archived from the original on 15 November 2016. Retrieved 17 May 2017.
{{cite web}}: Unknown parameter|deadurl=ignored (|url-status=suggested) (help)