@PubPeer@mastodon.social @PubPeer Twitter profile

Last Seen Profiles

@m7md_madouh

@deverespub

@Uto_Oshi

@m7md_madouh

@CryptogamerFTW

@m7md_madouh

@voldacy

@GodSpeedL0ve

@tracklist

@sofetec

@stw_pdg

@oto_kyon

@CY4T8tCKkSr0ifI

@Florang2611

@magiya_sfiso

@GCRsolCTO

@RinRin709817829

@Barbudocari

@ScumMuta

@ScrapHat

@H_99777

@ZuriyahD

@SpiderWebb99

@Asuke_07

@GottaGetOutt

@3aeckgxkfmss3

@koba979182794

@adam_gillwx

@chomuk0624

@BartramsGarden

@GBNEWS

@mariajjch

@muchalasia

@sazanamiganjiro

@GBMVC77

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

4 years

Thanks @raoult_didier .

Times Higher Education

@timeshighered

4 years

Survey reveals French public has lost confidence in scientists during the coronavirus pandemic

20

87

181

26

302

1K

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

4 years

@EChabriere Ravi d'apprendre que l'IHU est utilisateur de PubPeer. On attire votre attention sur le règlement Notamment les règles concernant : - les insultes - la diffamation - la nouveauté - le minimum d'appui et éventuellement - les théories complotistes

86

134

712

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

3 years

Congratulations France!

Frédérique Vidal

@VidalFrederique

3 years

La France est une grande nation scientifique: parmi les 10 publications scientifiques les plus citées au monde pendant cette crise, 2 étaient françaises. Grâce à #FranceRelance et à la #LoiRecherche , nous permettons un réinvestissement massif dans la recherche. #60MinutesBusiness

232

77

224

42

97

563

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

3 years

The online intimidation and legal threats against @MicrobiomDigest , who signs her critiques, are examples of why PubPeer offers the protection of anonymity, which is combined with strict content moderation.

8

74

285

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

2 years

PubPeer is ten years old today.

17

40

278

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

5 years

We now have a @zotero extension that indicates which articles in your Zotero library have PubPeer comments. You can find it here. We're interested in any feedback!

GitHub - PubPeerFoundation/pubpeer_zotero_plugin: Plugin to show if references in Zotero have...

Plugin to show if references in Zotero have PubPeer comments - PubPeerFoundation/pubpeer_zotero_plugin

github.com

9

98

248

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

4 years

Reminder: PubPeer comments have to be supported with publicly verifiable information: e.g. One cannot write a comment claiming that authors are conflicted without documenting a conflict of interest with publicly verifiable facts.

7

20

173

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

2 years

PubPeer recently turned ten years old, and in our first ten years our amazing users left 130k comments on ~45k publications across >4k journals. These numbers are impressive and we'd like to build on them and encourage different types of comments. So today we are announcing:

3

25

88

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

5 years

Our advice in such cases is for the author to avoid publishing.

3

22

78

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

3 years

Please consider signing this defence of Elisabeth Bik, whistleblowers and post-publication peer-review.

Lonni Besançon 🇫🇷 🇸🇪

@lonnibesancon

3 years

Are you a researcher believing that academic whistleblower's work (e.g., @MicrobiomDigest ) is instrumental to ethical, trustworthy, and honest research, we invite you to read and sign our Open Letter. Letter: Signature collection:

22

300

468

4

29

76

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

3 years

A reminder: accusations of misconduct and insults are forbidden on PubPeer and this is enforced by our moderation policies. We have no control over what other people write on social media.

1

7

58

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

5 years

That's interesting. Sychronised "organic" criticism of @MicrobiomDigest in French. Discussion of the chloroquine study is strategic. We counted at least 8 of these. Cc @Le___Doc

7

33

52

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

3 years

Scientists rally around misconduct consultant facing legal threat after challenging COVID-19 drug researcher

1

23

49

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

10 years

PubPeer comments are looking great on the @nature website! http://t.co/9EBK52WssH cc @Richvn @noahWG http://t.co/h2XsELodCU

6

41

49

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

7 years

Flaws pointed out immediately on PubPeer help prevent this recent paper from being used in #antivax propaganda.

3

38

48

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

6 years

Announcing Peeriodicals, where you are the editor-in-chief:

1

34

46

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

8 years

Anyone who is still thinking that citations can measure the impact of a scientific publication should read this:

A citation is not a citation is not a citation

Three years ago Nicolas Bray and I published a post-publication review of the paper “Network link prediction by global silencing of indirect correlations” (Barzel and Barabási, Nature B…

liorpachter.wordpress.com

1

34

44

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

5 years

"I think that, in two decades, we will look back on the past 60 years — particularly in biomedical science — and marvel at how much time and money has been wasted on flawed research."

Rein in the four horsemen of irreproducibility

Nature - Dorothy Bishop describes how threats to reproducibility, recognized but unaddressed for decades, might finally be brought under control.

www.nature.com

3

33

43

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

6 years

Swedish ISP punishes Elsevier for forcing it to block Sci-Hub by also blocking Elsevier

1

28

40

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

3 years

Reminder for those interested in hunting bad science: target the science not the scientist.

1

9

40

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

4 years

@MicrobiomDigest reviews the journals. With receipts. At these journals, the last people to hear about any problems in papers are the readers. Install the PubPeer browser and @zotero extensions to learn what the journals won't tell you:

Elisabeth Bik

@MicrobiomDigest

4 years

Several people asked me what the worst journals are to respond to image duplication or other concerns and/or to retract. Here are a couple from my list: (thread)

21

193

662

2

14

37

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

4 years

@MicrobiomDigest @nature @lookslikechloe @RetractionWatch So @nature finally acts to protect their readers - nearly one year after the editors knew there were problems. The readers are the product. Consider installing the @PubPeer extensions to receive early warning:

0

8

36

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

2 years

Starting today, we will begin highlighting comments containing incisive scientific discussion by putting them on the PubPeer front page. We will also reward the best of those comments with prizes of $300.

4

12

33

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

4 years

@bradpwyble @PsychScientists You could say she also helped us refine and test our moderation policies.

2

0

31

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

2 years

If you want to guarantee that your anonymous comment won't pass PubPeer moderation, here is a good opening sentence: "This is the most shocking case of clinical research fraud that my colleagues and I have uncovered to date".

6

4

28

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

5 years

How long will it take Elsevier to alert their readers that there might be a problem with this article? Any guesses?

2

9

27

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

5 years

In case you needed another reason to use @zotero : "the word processor plugin will also warn you if there [are] any existing citations in your document that have been retracted"

Available for beta testing: Retracted paper notifications

forums.zotero.org

Zotero

@zotero

5 years

Zotero and @RetractionWatch have teamed up to automatically warn you about retracted items in your Zotero database.

9

266

619

0

9

27

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

5 years

Readers shouldn't have to install a browser plugin to be alerted to discussion of an article. @biorxivpreprint links to PubPeer comments. Why don't any of the forward thinking journals? @mbeisen ? Until they do there's this:

3

6

26

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

4 years

Doesn't a website like this already exist?

Heather Piwowar

@researchremix

4 years

It's time. Someone should build a website to name authors who won't share data. Linked to doi, authors auto emailed when claim made against one of their papers, space for author to post their rationale, easy way to mark 'resolved!' if data sent, easy way to search. #opendata

4

12

27

2

3

24

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

7 years

@RetractionWatch @rnl_s @rnl_s Rebecca - please supply examples of careers destroyed by uncivil anonymous comments on PubPeer. @RetractionWatch #q4re2017

3

24

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

5 years

‘Fraud in the Lab’ Review: Experiments in Doubt

Lapses of rigor, misleading methods, outright falsiﬁcation: How common are the transgressions of research scientists?

www.wsj.com

1

8

24

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

6 years

PubPeer is 6 years old today.

3

6

22

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

2 years

As part of PubPeer's written testimony to the Science Committee of the US House of Representatives, we wish to give examples of influential papers with unresolved integrity or quality issues. Please suggest your best cases. 1/2

1

12

24

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

5 years

Paper that claimed the Sun caused global warming gets retracted

It turns out the Earth is also subject to gravity, which was a problem.

arstechnica.com

1

9

25

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

5 years

Our small team of volunteers has found 400 papers, based on similarities in titles, keywords and layout. These were relatively easy to find, although we did put in many hours of unpaid work to find these papers.

Elisabeth Bik

@MicrobiomDigest

5 years

@schneiderleonid @SmutClyde @JAByrneSci @PubPeer @mortenoxe @TigerBB8 Read my blog post with more details here: The Tadpole Paper Mill

4

63

183

0

8

24

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

6 years

In the 6 years of PubPeer this comment from a few hours ago is one of the most poetic author defenses we've seen so far: "The world is so large under the electron microscope that if you want, you can find two identical ones."

1

13

24

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

11 years

Post-publication peer review easily outperformed even the most careful reviewing in the best journal. http://t.co/hY5cfLcRpL @hannahdev

1

20

22

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

5 years

PubPeer is a platform for factual, scientific discussion. If you believe that comments are abusive, unsupported or otherwise infringe on our guidelines we encourage you to report them. We examine all reports carefully.

1

5

23

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

6 years

Universities and other scientific institutions can now receive immediate alerts when an article published by a member of their institution receives a comment on PubPeer:

3

18

21

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

4 years

Editorial expression of concern @ScienceMagazine @MicrobiomDigest

1

6

22

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

4 years

@OdedRechavi @SupremeHaggis Our experience from running an anonymous scientific publication commenting platform over the last 8 years is that worries of trolling are overblown and easily avoided with clear guidelines and moderation.

0

1

22

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

8 years

Smart software spots statistical errors in psychology papers : Nature News & Comment via @NatureNews

2

20

22

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

5 years

KU Leuven investigates claims against world authority on stem cell research

www.brusselstimes.com

2

7

22

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

2 years

Isn't the point of science to question everything? Do we really want "peer-reviewed" and journal name to signal any sort of quality? How about publish everything (including reviews) and trust nothing?

4

5

22

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

2 years

What are you all still doing here?

6

1

22

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

4 years

@mbeisen You're not alone. 8 years ago when we made the choice to allow anonymous comments we took a LOT of heat. With clear guidelines () and moderation it hasn't become the monster that was predicted and we now see many people softening their opinion on anonymity.

0

6

22

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

7 years

All comments from PubMed Commons can now be consulted on PubPeer and they will remain on PubMed for anyone with the PubPeer browser plugin: Thanks to the @PubMedCommons team for sharing this valuable resource.

1

9

20

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

5 years

Commenters using PubPeer's strong, user-controlled anonymity to discuss publications and data (factually and scientifically) will reduce their legal exposure.

Elisabeth Bik

@MicrobiomDigest

5 years

It seems that Jonathan Pruitt is trying to prevent people talking publicly about the unexpected duplications in his datasets. Luckily, the discussion continues on @PubPeer .

1

7

68

2

5

21

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

3 years

Great news!

Retraction Watch

@RetractionWatch

3 years

We're delighted to report that @EndNoteNews users will now be notified of retractions of any publications in their library, thanks to the integration of our database.

3

78

230

0

3

20

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

5 years

@MicrobiomDigest @Le___Doc Quite unjustified criticism, we should add.

1

2

19

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

5 years

Thread: a short update on moderation on PubPeer. Any success of PubPeer is due entirely to the utility and accuracy of the comments submitted by our users. In order to maintain the highest quality of discussion, we continually refine our moderation policies.

1

10

19

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

9 years

Reviewer finds rejected paper published in different journal w/ data relabelled (+ portions of his original review!)

1

22

18

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

6 years

How did Springer Nature get into 3 **billion** euro debt? Is public research covering a shady business deal? "The entire proceeds would have been used to cut Springer Nature’s net debt by a third. That currently stands at roughly 3 billion euros."

2

9

18

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

8 years

Detect fabricated images with a new plugin for ImageJ:

GitHub - ZMBH-Imaging-Facility/InspectJ: InspectJ is a free ImageJ or FIJI tool to inspect digital...

InspectJ is a free ImageJ or FIJI tool to inspect digital image integrity. - ZMBH-Imaging-Facility/InspectJ

github.com

1

20

18

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

5 years

Discussion on the Chloroquine preliminary study on @medrxivpreprint and (possibly quicker) also on PubPeer

1

17

16

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

8 years

Bad science misled millions with chronic fatigue syndrome. Here’s how we fought back via @statnews

1

9

18

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

4 years

Wishing a Happy New Year to all PubPeer and Peeriodicals contributors! Our sites would quite simply not exist without you. Their utility flows entirely from your expertise and hard - sometimes thankless - work. Thank you all.

2

18

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

4 years

“It is astonishing that [the committee] concluded that no fraud had been committed in any of these cases,” says Elisabeth Bik, a microbiologist

Famed Chinese immunologist cleared of plagiarism and fraud

Nature - But Cao Xuetao will be barred from applying for grants for a year after investigators found ‘misused images’ in his group’s papers.

www.nature.com

3

7

16

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

4 years

A reminder that legal threats are not a theoretical risk when you question the work of others. That's one of the reasons we allow anonymity on PubPeer (while moderating comments). A lot of the historical debate on the issue summarised here:

Fredrik Jutfelt 🐠

@FredrikJutfelt

4 years

Yet another #pruittdata paper. I wish someone would put the google spreadsheet with the Pruitt paper overview back up.

3

2

6

1

6

17

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

2 years

Retweeting this one but the entire thread is worth a read .

Jonny Coates (jacoates.bsky.social)

@JACoates

2 years

Peer review does not stop bad science being published. Peer review does not validate a papers findings. Peer review does not significantly improve (most) studies that have been preprinted. Peer review does cost considerable time and money.

3

51

323

1

5

16

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

4 years

Frustrating exchange in this thread, between the Chief Editor of Nature Biomedical Engineering and readers of the journal.

Dave Fernig (migrating)

@DaveFernig

4 years

@PepPamies @BorisBarbour @Thatsregrettab1 @SpringerNature @PubPeer @NatureMaterials @nature It is indeed 0.0375 molecules and to maintain such crap in the scientific literature is on a par with STAP cells, arsenate DNA, Wakefield's MMR fraud; may not kill directly, but may indirectly, because some idiot will use this as 'evidence' for homeopathy and structure of H2O

3

1

8

3

4

17

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

5 years

@ryneches @biorxivpreprint Are you aware that you can start your own journal in a few seconds and send these articles out for review? Even create an editorial board.

1

2

16

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

4 years

He Was a Science Star. Then He Promoted a Questionable Cure for Covid-19.

3

6

16

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

9 years

"Please compare Figure 9, of this article with the image in the CELL SIGNALLING CATALOGUE"!

3

21

16

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

11 years

"..post-publication peer review easily outperformed even the most careful reviewing in the best journal": http://t.co/hY5cfLcRpL

1

26

14

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

3 years

@PLOSONE @MicrobiomDigest Hi PLoS, if you appreciate these issues being brought to your attention you might consider subscribing to a dashboard so your responses can be more timely:

0

16

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

8 years

Great course for all grad students at UW: . (Although key readings missing from week 10). @CT_Bergstrom

1

9

15

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

8 years

Ironic that @naturenews has shutdown commenting on this piece for the last three days... @Richvn

nature

@Nature

8 years

You should feel free to scrutinise a paper following publication, but criticism should be constructive

2

58

83

1

8

16

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

4 years

@MicrobiomDigest is a public service.

Elisabeth Bik

@MicrobiomDigest

4 years

I am currently posting all of those on @Pubpeer . Heck of a job, but at least they are now flagged for everyone who has PubPeer's browser extension. Some might be just errors, some might be intentional, but all are worth responding to. These journal editors chose to ignore.

6

86

1

3

15

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

3 years

"You can buy an author’s position or an entire article."

Retraction Watch

@RetractionWatch

3 years

Introducing two sites that claim to sell authorships on scientific papers.

3

16

23

2

9

14

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

7 years

@lakens We have all @PubMedCommons comments and will add them to PubPeer to preserve them as soon as we can. We are currently focused on putting the final touches on another exciting project that we hope to release over the next few months. Stay tuned.

2

5

15

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

4 years

Putting aside personalities, reputations and ad hominems, @PubPeer we welcome focused and dispassionate scientific discussion. Authors are very welcome to respond with clarifications to questions about their work.

Didier Raoult

@raoult_didier

4 years

The witchhunter @MicrobiomDigest is not attentive to details when she judges that a study is useful to her paranoiac fights! Control group was treated with azithromycin. Nearly dying patients with lymphopenia were treated with hydroxychloroquine. Fraudulent study. Fake news.

664

2K

5K

1

6

15

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

4 years

Finally, we remind another "frequent reporter" that PubPeer user pseuodyms are assigned randomly from the tree of life and are therefore not chosen by the commenter. Dicksonia Gigantea is a tree fern:

File:Dicksonia gigantea (11310015693).jpg - Wikimedia Commons

commons.wikimedia.org

2

0

14

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

4 years

We have updated our commenting guideline FAQs to reflect current moderation policies, which have evolved significantly since the site launched in 2012. We particularly draw your attention to the "content" and "quality" questions:

1

4

14

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

6 years

Another reason why we allow anonymous critique on PubPeer.

Chris Chambers

@chrisdc77

6 years

What a shameful state of affairs it is when people DM me privately to say that entire sub-fields in their discipline are horrendously p-hacked but that they can't put their name to such statements publicly for fear of reprisals. Senior academics, hang your heads in shame.

21

108

434

0

6

14

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

8 years

Another @CellCellPress paper making extraordinary claims for the microbiome on the basis of flawed statistics?

1

26

14

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

6 years

"The False Claims Act allows whistleblowers to collect hefty rewards for reporting faked data in grant applications and reports."

The Scale of Retractions in Science Is Far More Staggering Than You Might Think

Not all retractions are bad, though.

www.sciencealert.com

0

10

14

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

3 years

"The data hoarders have set up torrents from the 85 million articles and they’re looking for seeders."

Retraction Watch

@RetractionWatch

3 years

“Activist Archivists Are Trying to Save the ‘Pirate Bay of Science.’”

1

75

199

0

2

14

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

7 years

Yet the final versions are costing millions... "Our analysis revealed that the text contents of the scientific papers generally changed very little from their pre-print to final published versions."

Comparing published scientific journal articles to their pre-print versions

International Journal on Digital Libraries - Academic publishers claim that they add value to scholarly communications by coordinating reviews and contributing and enhancing text during...

link.springer.com

2

19

13

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

8 years

Is there a microbiome bubble? cc @phylogenomics @edyong209

0

3

14

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

6 years

Rather than simply moving from “paying to read” to “paying to publish”, it’s time for a European Open Access Platform

0

13

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

4 years

This is getting a lot of traffic. From Facebook. Which is never a good sign.

0

1

14

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

6 years

Apparently you can't publish the data provided in the antibody catalog...

Science Blotter

@SciBlotter

6 years

Cell Proliferation "Retracted: Role of 7-nicotinic acetylcholine rece..." @PubPeer

0

2

8

13

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

7 years

People are asking why did @PubMedCommons fail. We might know why:

3

16

12

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

4 years

"Pro tip to would-be fraudsters: If you’re going to submit new figures to support your claims, make sure they’re not obviously fake."

Retraction Watch

@RetractionWatch

4 years

Researchers tried to correct a figure after questions on @PubPeer . Then the real trouble started.

1

6

20

2

4

13

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

7 years

Moderation will be much improved (and more transparent) in PubPeer v2. (beta version to be released soon)

0

3

13

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

5 years

The Ibuprofen Debate Reveals the Danger of Covid-19 Rumors

0

3

12

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

7 years

Evaluating Science's open-data policy "...mandate and enforce data archival[...]at the time of submission."

2

6

13

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

5 years

We've been at this for over 7 years now but still come across comments that shock us:

2

5

13

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

9 years

Wow. A lab head just cc'd us on a message he sent out to his entire department. http://t.co/vfnPWg6OGk

2

11

13

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

8 years

Elsevier had started destroying SSRN:

1

18

13

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

10 years

Post-publication peer review and PubPeer in The Guardian: http://t.co/5V3ZQno3D2

Retractions are coming thick and fast: it's time for publishers to act | Adam Marcus and Ivan...

Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky: Journal publishers must acknowledge the limitations of traditional peer review and fully embrace post-publication peer review

www.theguardian.com

1

17

12

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

7 years

@lakens @PubMedCommons However, the closing of @PubMedCommons shows that these things take resources. We have received generous support from the @LauraArnoldFdn that will run out in May 2019. Please consider donating to keep PubPeer alive: @Neuro_Skeptic

Get more from PubPeer on Patreon

creating PubPeer.com

www.patreon.com

0

11

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

4 years

Anonymous comments are allowed.

rhymes with purple

@GenericBologna

4 years

In 5 words or less, start a fight without politics

29K

756

8K

0

12

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

11 years

"Statistics are used much like a drunk uses a lamp post: for support, not illumination." -Vin Scully (and Andrew Lang)

1

25

12

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

3 years

We could not agree more.

Vootele Voikar

@VVoikar

3 years

. @PubPeer should not be thought as for posting only criticism and concerns - positive comments are welcome as well, and perhaps the conclusions of journal club, concise summary of strengths/weaknesses

3

2

17

0

2

12

@[email protected]

@PubPeer

8 years

Post your referee reports online says @lteytelman :

4

7