PubPeer

Zsombor Szabó2025年7月3日

★★★★★2

There are a lot of bugs

Luke Steiger2025年3月11日

★★★★★5

Great extension and service - just bear in mind you need to use your skills as a scientist to determine the credibility of comments and how much the influence the findings. It's a good resource for starting discussion, but don't uncritically discard studies that draw debate

Vendula Koublová2025年3月4日

★★★★★5

Useful extension, highly recommend. The 1* reviews have some obvious biases. Any author has the chance to respond to comments related to their paper. Instead, some choose to come here and rate the extension poorly. That doesn't feel like an effort to sustain a fair scientific discussion. I'm experiencing some issues with the PubPeer bar display. When I close the bar, an annoying blank line stays in its place and the whole page is still shifted down. As Tomas Fiers suggested, the developers might want to consider another visual indication of an existing comment.

D Starling2024年12月13日

★★★★★5

useful extension. as others have said, run the names of the 1 star reviews through it, as they seem to be scorned by the service more than anything.

Mohammad Olfati2024年11月29日

★★★★★1

This website has become a breeding ground for bias and jealousy. I firmly disagree with the use of pseudonyms on PubPeer, particularly when individuals make comments on academic papers. This conduct erodes trust and should not be condoned. Rather, we should promote the utilization of official university or institutional email addresses, along with the researcher’s complete name and affiliated organization, to foster transparency and responsibility. Constructive and transparent criticism is beneficial when it includes the critic's real name and academic email address.

Anil K Patel2024年7月19日

★★★★★1

Once individuals present themselves as a known entity, I trust that they pose genuine, scientifically relevant questions. Otherwise, it appears as an attempt to undermine others cowardly and unscientifically. Open discussion of published studies and data interpretation is beneficial, but comments should be peer-reviewed and articulated scientifically to address specific concerns. I am more than happy to address questions from individuals who identify themselves, allowing me to gauge their professional background, work quality, and ethical conduct. Engaging with an AI and being confined to a questioning box feels unfair. Transparency and mutual respect are key in these interactions.

Matthew 'Jesus' Elvey2024年6月15日

★★★★★4

-1/2: Glitchy - e.g. says there's a note on PMID 33057181, but doesn't display one. -1/2: Shadowbans some comments. (Censors them from view, except to the author) It's informative to look up the people who put up 1-star votes in PubPeer, e.g. AKP brings up TWO RETRACTED articles; their PubMed IDs are 30685132 and 23069613.

Amjad Pasha2024年3月16日

★★★★★1

I strongly disagree with the practice of using a fictitious name on PubPeer, particularly when it is associated with an author who comments on scientific articles. This behavior is cowardly and should not be encouraged. Instead, it is important to promote the use of official university or organizational email addresses, along with the full name and affiliation of the researcher, to ensure transparency and accountability.

KS Sam2024年1月24日

★★★★★3

The idea of open discussion of published studies is good, but the comments need to be peer-reviewed and describe the concerns in a scientific manner. Further, there is no reason to use pseudonyms. If the plan is to question data or interpretation, it should be done openly.

Riia Jarvenpaa2022年7月25日

★★★★★5

This is really valuable project, huge respect for the people behind it. The usability of the extension could of course be better, like all of the internet. This is an open source project and people interested about the transparency of the science can contribute by donating the project money or their expertise.