3.6 out of 5
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
Anil K PatelJul 18, 2024
- Report illegal content
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
Matthew ElveyJun 15, 2024
- Report illegal content
-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 PashaMar 16, 2024
- Report illegal content
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 SamJan 24, 2024
- Report illegal content
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 JarvenpaaJul 24, 2022
- Report illegal content
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.
Tomas FiersApr 5, 2022
- Report illegal content
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
Ben PrytherchSep 25, 2021
- Report illegal content
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.
Richard SeglenieksJun 24, 2021
- Report illegal content
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
劉wellJun 24, 2021
- Report illegal content
nice
R. M.Dec 11, 2020
- Report illegal content
Random pop-ups on non-pubpeer pages are unacceptable. (got pop-up idk about what on google.com)