Item logo image for PubPeer

PubPeer

pubpeer.com
Featured
3.6(

28 ratings

)
ExtensionTools20,000 users

3.6 out of 5

28 ratings

Google doesn't verify reviews. Learn more about results and reviews.

  • All reviews
  • Recent
  • Helpful
  • Highest to lowest rating
  • Lowest to highest rating
  • English
  • All languages
Review's profile picture

Anil K PatelJul 18, 2024

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 pro... Show more

4 out of 19 found this helpful
Review's profile picture

Matthew ElveyJun 15, 2024

-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.

5 out of 5 found this helpful
Review's profile picture

Amjad PashaMar 16, 2024

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.

17 out of 37 found this helpful
Review's profile picture

KS SamJan 24, 2024

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.

10 out of 18 found this helpful
Review's profile picture

Riia JarvenpaaJul 24, 2022

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.

2 out of 3 found this helpful
Review's profile picture

Tomas FiersApr 5, 2022

PubPeer seems like a good project and I fully agree with the idea of open comments. This browser extension works well, but is often a bit annoying: the PubPeer bar at the top of the page appears only after the page has loaded, which causes the page contents to suddenly shift down. This could be fixed by having another indicator (maybe a small fixed-pos sidebar like Scite or Hypothesis do). Another problem is mentioned by Balázs Knakker below: The PubPeer bar appears and says "There are 2 ar... Show more

2 out of 2 found this helpful
Review's profile picture

Ben PrytherchSep 25, 2021

Works great. I use it all the time. PubPeer is a vitally important tool for holding the practice of science to the ideals of science.

2 out of 2 found this helpful
Review's profile picture

Richard SeglenieksJun 24, 2021

Seems to be working great! Displays notifications on PubMed, journal websites and search engines. Can click through from the notification to the PubPeer page. Thanks

2 out of 2 found this helpful
Review's profile picture

劉wellJun 24, 2021

nice

1 person found this review to be unhelpful
Review's profile picture

R. M.Dec 11, 2020

Random pop-ups on non-pubpeer pages are unacceptable. (got pop-up idk about what on google.com)

1 out of 4 found this helpful
Google apps