PubPeer

PubPeer is a website that allows users to discuss and review scientific research.

PubPeer
URLhttp://www.pubpeer.com
Launched2012

The site is one of many allowing academics to engage in post-publication peer review. It 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 PubPeer comments are required to use only facts that can be publicly verified.[9]

See also

References
  1. "researcher admits mistakes in stem cell study".
  2. Sven Stockrahm; Lydia Klöckner; Dagny Lüdemann (2013-05-23). "Zellbiologe gibt Fehler in Klonstudie zu".
  3. "Stem cell cloner acknowledges errors in ground breaking paper".
  4. "Stapgate shows Japan must get back to basics in science".
  5. "Leading diabetes researcher corrects paper as more than a dozen studies are questioned on PubPeer". 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".
  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 journal requires |journal= (help)
  9. "PubPeer - How to comment on PubPeer". pubpeer.com. Archived from the original on 15 November 2016. Retrieved 17 May 2017.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.