#pubpeer — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #pubpeer, aggregated by home.social.
-
-
TIL that commercial publishers still really suck as conduit of the scientific discourse.
Three months, and no updates, just a "we're looking at it. don't contact us, don't contact the author"
Are they just waiting to see it blow over?
https://www.pubpeer.com/publications/E18F253C8EB7B947220AFDB4F608FC
-
TIL that commercial publishers still really suck as conduit of the scientific discourse.
Three months, and no updates, just a "we're looking at it. don't contact us, don't contact the author"
Are they just waiting to see it blow over?
https://www.pubpeer.com/publications/E18F253C8EB7B947220AFDB4F608FC
-
Still not retracted: this article published by an #Elsevier journal has had comments on #PubPeer since October 2021 with non sensical expressions such as "ice water shower" instead of "ice water bath" and other problems
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2016.04.064
https://pubpeer.com/publications/5CA4B5C0ADBD94A1D8E6A8344B3962 -
Still not retracted: this article published by an #Elsevier journal has had comments on #PubPeer since October 2021 with non sensical expressions such as "ice water shower" instead of "ice water bath" and other problems
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2016.04.064
https://pubpeer.com/publications/5CA4B5C0ADBD94A1D8E6A8344B3962 -
@elduvelle @albertcardona @neuralreckoning
To me this question seems to be the issue of the #eLife journal hypothesis: they are providing reviews on preprints. They are basically post-preprint review (like #PubPeer), but unlike PubPeer, they still think (at least they talk of themselves as) a journal.
I think what #eLife and #PubPeer are doing is great. But they cannot be listed in one's CV as "refereed publications" in the way that other gatekept* journals are.
... which gets at the point @jonmsterling made about separating "preprints", "refereed publications" and "titles I'm thinking about writing" (in preparation) on one's CV.
It would be interesting to see how #eLife is still being treated as a "journal" on CVs and for grants and promotion.
BTW, in an earlier discussion, we agreed that one could list eLife papers in one's CV as long as one also included the eLife assessment on one's CV. Wanna bet these authors don't? 🤔
* Yes, I know eLife is gatekept by editors, but the door is opened based on "interesting", not based on "correct". (And, yes, there is evidence that the Glam journals do that as well, but they are at least ostensibly _claiming_ to only publish papers that are "correct".)
-
@elduvelle @albertcardona @neuralreckoning
To me this question seems to be the issue of the #eLife journal hypothesis: they are providing reviews on preprints. They are basically post-preprint review (like #PubPeer), but unlike PubPeer, they still think (at least they talk of themselves as) a journal.
I think what #eLife and #PubPeer are doing is great. But they cannot be listed in one's CV as "refereed publications" in the way that other gatekept* journals are.
... which gets at the point @jonmsterling made about separating "preprints", "refereed publications" and "titles I'm thinking about writing" (in preparation) on one's CV.
It would be interesting to see how #eLife is still being treated as a "journal" on CVs and for grants and promotion.
BTW, in an earlier discussion, we agreed that one could list eLife papers in one's CV as long as one also included the eLife assessment on one's CV. Wanna bet these authors don't? 🤔
* Yes, I know eLife is gatekept by editors, but the door is opened based on "interesting", not based on "correct". (And, yes, there is evidence that the Glam journals do that as well, but they are at least ostensibly _claiming_ to only publish papers that are "correct".)
-
This is very meta... essentially someone who is in the business of writing fake papers has written a fake paper criticizing Pubpeer and post publication peer review as being vulnerable to “misuse” and “hyper-skepticism.
#RetractionWatch #AcademicIntegrity #ResearchMisconduct #ScholarlyPublishing #PostPublicationReview #PubPeer #FakeScience #MetaScience #PeerReview #ScienceFraud
-
This is very meta... essentially someone who is in the business of writing fake papers has written a fake paper criticizing Pubpeer and post publication peer review as being vulnerable to “misuse” and “hyper-skepticism.
#RetractionWatch #AcademicIntegrity #ResearchMisconduct #ScholarlyPublishing #PostPublicationReview #PubPeer #FakeScience #MetaScience #PeerReview #ScienceFraud
-
A closer look at the PubPeer discussions involving Esam Agamy (University of Sharjah Chancellor) reveals repeated concerns about duplicated images, reused data, and lack of corrective action.
PubPeer gives scientists and readers a chance to hold the record accountable — and these threads show why institutional response and editorial transparency matter.
Read and judge for yourself 👇
🔗 https://pubpeer.com/search?q=Esam+agamy#ResearchIntegrity #AcademicEthics #PubPeer #RetractionWatch #OpenScience
-
We all know there are several #Pubpeer comments showing fraudulent data and AI-generated papers in #ScientificReports by #SpringerNature, but wow that journal's #review process is screwed up much more than people realize.... Worst experience ever. After one AE refused to make a decision after two second round reviews were in, new AE said we need a 3rd reviewer and round three to settle the reviewers' disagreement. Okay. Review 3 is now in: "My concerns are minor and can be easily addressed in a revision." Editor decision: Reject.
-
We all know there are several #Pubpeer comments showing fraudulent data and AI-generated papers in #ScientificReports by #SpringerNature, but wow that journal's #review process is screwed up much more than people realize.... Worst experience ever. After one AE refused to make a decision after two second round reviews were in, new AE said we need a 3rd reviewer and round three to settle the reviewers' disagreement. Okay. Review 3 is now in: "My concerns are minor and can be easily addressed in a revision." Editor decision: Reject.
-
#RetractionWatch
Papers & #peerreviews with evidence of #ChatGPT writingRetraction Watch readers have likely heard about papers showing evidence that they were written by ChatGPT. We have reported on the phenomenon.
Here’s a list — relying on a search strategy developed by #GuillaumeCabanac, who has been posting the results on #PubPeer — of such papers that we’ll keep updated regularly. We also recommend Alex Glynn’s Academ-AI. Have a suggested entry? Use this form.
https://retractionwatch.com/papers-and-peer-reviews-with-evidence-of-chatgpt-writing/ -
#RetractionWatch
Papers & #peerreviews with evidence of #ChatGPT writingRetraction Watch readers have likely heard about papers showing evidence that they were written by ChatGPT. We have reported on the phenomenon.
Here’s a list — relying on a search strategy developed by #GuillaumeCabanac, who has been posting the results on #PubPeer — of such papers that we’ll keep updated regularly. We also recommend Alex Glynn’s Academ-AI. Have a suggested entry? Use this form.
https://retractionwatch.com/papers-and-peer-reviews-with-evidence-of-chatgpt-writing/ -
Trop gros, trop cher, trop moche..., le système de publications scientifiques est à bout de souffle. Un article de "niche" pour passer un bon été :https://www.lemonde.fr/sciences/article/2025/07/07/le-monde-des-revues-scientifiques-au-bord-de-l-asphyxie_6619660_1650684.html
(allez au bout car il y a des messages d'espoirs...)et en bonus, un "appui" sur l'usage de l'IA qui n'arrange rien,
https://www.lemonde.fr/sciences/article/2025/07/07/comment-l-ia-bouscule-les-publications-scientifiques_6619655_1650684.html#science #preprint #recherche #pci #pubpeer #matilda #openaccess #retraction
@BorisBarbour @enroweb @ElisabethBik -
🟢 Nanoparticules, macro conséquences
Cette semaine on retrace l'affaire Jolanda Spadavecchia qui aura duré quatre ans pour déboucher sur deux ans d'exclusion et 17 publications à rétracter
https://themeta.news/nanoparticules-fraudes-et-sanction-au-cnrs/
-
Hi #Academics,
When you read a paper in your field and disagree with something that the authors did (e.g. interpret results incorrectly) or did not do (e.g. not cite an extremely relevant paper), how do you usually react:
#Research #Academia #AcademicChatter #ScientificPublications #Pubpeer
Edited to add the Pubpeer option, you might have to vote again, sorry -
Hi #Academics,
When you read a paper in your field and disagree with something that the authors did (e.g. interpret results incorrectly) or did not do (e.g. not cite an extremely relevant paper), how do you usually react:
#Research #Academia #AcademicChatter #ScientificPublications #Pubpeer
Edited to add the Pubpeer option, you might have to vote again, sorry -
I am very tempted to try out #PubPeer to criticize some articles that I have seen. I wonder what is its business model is. Is it a company running a walled garden or a non profit?
If it is any of those I might as well muster up some courage to blog my criticism instead.
-
I am very tempted to try out #PubPeer to criticize some articles that I have seen. I wonder what is its business model is. Is it a company running a walled garden or a non profit?
If it is any of those I might as well muster up some courage to blog my criticism instead.
-
Saw this in #PubPeer:
"As is customary in the genre, this paper features hollow sentences with bulk citations."
:catroll:
-
Saw this in #PubPeer:
"As is customary in the genre, this paper features hollow sentences with bulk citations."
:catroll:
-
Comment on 2015 mRNA paper suggests data re-used in different contexts
https://pubpeer.com/publications/323E84675EB2E849C56097D73D55FD#1
#ycombinator #pubpeer #science #peer_reviewed_publications #journals #publication_conversations #peer_reviewed_journals #post_publication_peer_review -
Comment on 2015 mRNA paper suggests data re-used in different contexts
https://pubpeer.com/publications/323E84675EB2E849C56097D73D55FD#1
#ycombinator #pubpeer #science #peer_reviewed_publications #journals #publication_conversations #peer_reviewed_journals #post_publication_peer_review -
Same three bands appear in three different presentations with different labels
https://pubpeer.com/publications/323E84675EB2E849C56097D73D55FD#1
#ycombinator #pubpeer #science #peer_reviewed_publications #journals #publication_conversations #peer_reviewed_journals #post_publication_peer_review -
Same three bands appear in three different presentations with different labels
https://pubpeer.com/publications/323E84675EB2E849C56097D73D55FD#1
#ycombinator #pubpeer #science #peer_reviewed_publications #journals #publication_conversations #peer_reviewed_journals #post_publication_peer_review -
And another article published with yours truthfully as co-author and the use of #Snakemake on HPC-clusters: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopha.2025.117841
Whilst at least #OpenAccess it still does not adhere to #OpenScience principles, e.g. #FAIR and transparent data sharing. Sometimes it's hard to draw people away from the dark force. If anyone criticises this article on #PubPeer, I would not mind.
The workflow itself is in the Snakemake workflow catalogue - I wanted to write a paper about it last autumn. Might be sometime later this spring, now. Too much at hand ...
-
And another article published with yours truthfully as co-author and the use of #Snakemake on HPC-clusters: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopha.2025.117841
Whilst at least #OpenAccess it still does not adhere to #OpenScience principles, e.g. #FAIR and transparent data sharing. Sometimes it's hard to draw people away from the dark force. If anyone criticises this article on #PubPeer, I would not mind.
The workflow itself is in the Snakemake workflow catalogue - I wanted to write a paper about it last autumn. Might be sometime later this spring, now. Too much at hand ...
-
@elisabethbik.bsky.social Divide and conquer!
We (I dare include the whole #OpenScience community) are in this together. Point to #PubPeer wherever possible. Many are in for this fight - it is not "just" about tinkering with images.
Yet, we learned: Forensics and public shaming are not enough. OpenScience is the prevention part. Many are working on better rewarding OS practices to improve transparency.
-
@elisabethbik.bsky.social Divide and conquer!
We (I dare include the whole #OpenScience community) are in this together. Point to #PubPeer wherever possible. Many are in for this fight - it is not "just" about tinkering with images.
Yet, we learned: Forensics and public shaming are not enough. OpenScience is the prevention part. Many are working on better rewarding OS practices to improve transparency.
-
"We are thrilled to share that PubPeer has been awarded the prestigious Einstein Foundation Award for Promoting Quality in Research. This international honor, bestowed by a board of distinguished scientists, recognizes not only the platform but, most importantly, the invaluable contributions of our users."
-
Science, particularly the biomedical branch, suffers from a #reproducibilitycrisis. Elizabeth Bik from https://microbiomedigest.com/ who is one of the best known science sleuths (and alas still on X). Has received the Einstein Award - along with #PubPeer: https://award.einsteinfoundation.de/award-winners-finalists/recipients-2024
-
@janeadams Surprising it took this long to be noticed in such high-profile #research. It's great there are platforms like #PubPeer to identify cases such as this!
-
@janeadams Surprising it took this long to be noticed in such high-profile #research. It's great there are platforms like #PubPeer to identify cases such as this!
-
An evening rant: In #bioinformatics, we should have a systematic way to point out or declare where missing data fail us to proceed.
The lousily annotated genome, the data, which are (not) available on request or the paper, which — after a while — turned out to contain way too many methodical holes to be merit the tag #ReproducibleResearch.
Yes, there is #PubPeer. It is not enough. There still is not enough pressure for change.
-
An evening rant: In #bioinformatics, we should have a systematic way to point out or declare where missing data fail us to proceed.
The lousily annotated genome, the data, which are (not) available on request or the paper, which — after a while — turned out to contain way too many methodical holes to be merit the tag #ReproducibleResearch.
Yes, there is #PubPeer. It is not enough. There still is not enough pressure for change.
-
For fediversers interested in #science and the rigor of scientific #research, this #nakedcapitalism article is a weekend #mustread 🙏 #PubPeer #RetractionWatch
I knew of the problems with plagiarism & zealous dissemination of pre/non peer-reviewed research papers, much thru electronic socialization of respected journal platforms, which had contributed to rising pseudo-research, but was flabbergasted by the actual depth & breadth of it.🧐🫨🔬
The Rise of the Science Sleuths
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2024/09/the-rise-of-the-science-sleuths.html -
Two years ago, in July 2022, I was reading on a specific molecule class for a set of experiments for a cooperation partner. I read an excellent review article, but it was missing some angle, so I looked for another review article. And realized... They were the same? I checked and that article plagiarized 90 % of the original review article. I wrote about it on pubpeer. #chemiverse #publishing #academia #chemistry #pubpeer #ScientificMisconduct (1/x) https://pubpeer.com/publications/AD85BB039A6917933CC4EE362436BE
-
Two years ago, in July 2022, I was reading on a specific molecule class for a set of experiments for a cooperation partner. I read an excellent review article, but it was missing some angle, so I looked for another review article. And realized... They were the same? I checked and that article plagiarized 90 % of the original review article. I wrote about it on pubpeer. #chemiverse #publishing #academia #chemistry #pubpeer #ScientificMisconduct (1/x) https://pubpeer.com/publications/AD85BB039A6917933CC4EE362436BE
-
Der nächste Streich unseres „Wissenschaftsnarren“ @dirnagl vorab online:
Zur Zukunft des #PeerReview: Die Fehlerkultur im Wissenschaftsbetrieb ist zu mies, um Publikationen adäquat zu korrigieren. Daher ist #PubPeer derzeit das beste Medium dafür…
-
Der nächste Streich unseres „Wissenschaftsnarren“ @dirnagl vorab online:
Zur Zukunft des #PeerReview: Die Fehlerkultur im Wissenschaftsbetrieb ist zu mies, um Publikationen adäquat zu korrigieren. Daher ist #PubPeer derzeit das beste Medium dafür…
-
Bad graphing practice and software bugs look like they drive the headline plots in a recent Nature paper "Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time"
Get the details on pub peer
https://pubpeer.com/publications/E728CA80B5E267FA3F6C6B318BEEDA#Via https://mastodon.online/@jonny@neuromatch.social/111994966382627024
-
Bad graphing practice and software bugs look like they drive the headline plots in a recent Nature paper "Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time"
Get the details on pub peer
https://pubpeer.com/publications/E728CA80B5E267FA3F6C6B318BEEDA#Via https://mastodon.online/@jonny@neuromatch.social/111994966382627024
-
#Zotero does it (showing you which papers have been retracted). And also using the #Pubpeer plugin is very useful. It would be great if these two could get some funding from the government as tools of public utility…
-
A user on #Pubpeer flagged the 2009 paper published in #Nature for image issues - the same image was copy-pasted as result of different essays.
When this happens, fraudsters usually claims honest error, but in this case, the conclusions have been proven false: in #Alzheimer's disease, APP - the precursor of amyloid beta - does not bind in the way suggested to DR6 - a receptor that induces neuronal #Apoptosis- and everything in that paper is a lie. -
@BorisBarbour wow… and the final blow at the end… this also shows how crucial it is to have a system like #Pubpeer!
-
Doing some lit review and found a relevant Nature paper in which authors explicitly claimed no conflicts of interest. Yet I found they had applied for and been granted a patent on the same technology two years prior. Is this a big deal and if so does it merit a comment on #PubPeer or something similar?
