PubPeer: Strengthening Research through PubPeer Engagement
The earliest known retraction in the English-language scientific literature dates back to 1756, in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Fast forward to the present day, when high-profile cases of data manipulation, fraudulent findings, and irreproducible results continue to keep alert researchers and whistleblowers on their toes, leading to various initiatives to reinforce research integrity. PubPeer, an online platform that allows scientists to share and discuss critical reviews of scientific papers, has emerged as an important platform for maintaining research integrity.
Founded by neuroscientist Brandon Stell in 2012, PubPeer is a nonprofit initiative that aims to improve the quality of scientific research by enabling community interaction and post-publication peer review. This online platform allows researchers to have transparent and constructive discussions about published studies. Users can anonymously or publicly comment on any aspect of a published paper, making it a useful platform for identifying flawed or fraudulent studies.
Most often, researchers or readers who spot potentially flawed or fraudulent studies and alert journal editors about them do not receive a response, let alone see any action taken. This could be because of conflicts of interest or even reluctance on the part of the editors to avoid any association of their journals with news of retractions. In such frustrating circumstances, concerned researchers can turn to PubPeer to caution readers about potentially suspicious papers. PubPeer’s role is to protect readers and users of publications by serving as an early warning system, especially when alerting a journal or university yields no results and/or the reader wants to discuss the suspicions with experts globally. Like peer review, commenting on PubPeer is a way to enforce the self-correcting nature of science.
Unique features of PubPeer
PubPeer stands out in the academic landscape for several reasons.
Scrutiny after publication
Unlike traditional peer review, which occurs before a paper’s publication, PubPeer facilitates post-publication review. This allows the broader scientific community to scrutinize and discuss the findings, methodologies, and data of published research, allowing continuous evaluation and refinement.
Anonymity
PubPeer comments can be posted anonymously. This encourages more straightforward and critical feedback, while protecting them from potential retaliation. The cloak of anonymity can be misused, but it also protects users from legal threats and intimidation. PubPeer’s moderation policies aim to maintain a balance between openness and professionalism.
Fast-tracking action against problematic papers
Concerns or errors can be highlighted and addressed faster than through traditional channels like journal corrections or retractions. In 2014, Haruko Obokata, a researcher at the Japanese Riken Center for Developmental Biology, published two papers in Nature 2014 describing a groundbreaking method termed stimulus-triggered acquisition of pluripotency (STAP). Mere hours after publication, doubts about the validity of the papers and images therein appeared on the PubPeer website. Spurred by the concerns raised, an investigation was launched, and the Nature papers were retracted a few months after publication.
Open and diverse engagement
PubPeer facilitates ongoing discussions about published research long after a paper has been published. The platform allows researchers from various fields to contribute to discussions, uncovering issues that might be missed by specialists in a single discipline. In this collaborative environment, researchers can engage with their peers across disciplines.
Archival and searchable database
PubPeer serves as a single location for post-publication discussions across multiple journals and publishers, making it easier for researchers to track and participate in relevant conversations. PubPeer maintains an archive of discussions that is searchable by researchers. Thus, insights and critiques are preserved and accessible for future reference.
How can researchers use PubPeer?
As a researcher, you can use PubPeer effectively to your advantage by adopting the following practices.
Engage actively
You can actively participate in discussions related to your work and those of others. Periodically check the PubPeer website for comments on your own publications and those in your field of interest.
Offer constructive feedback
When raising concerns about a publication, focus on providing specific, evidence-based feedback. Avoid vague criticism. Personal attacks are an absolute no-no. In fact, following constructive comments on PubPeer and actively commenting can help early-career researchers become better peer reviewers!
Address comments on your work appropriately
If comments are made about your work, respond in a timely and professional manner.
Remember that not all PubPeer comments indicate misconduct or serious errors. Some may simply be requests for clarification or suggestions for improvement. Use the insights gained from the PubPeer website to improve your research before submission.
Troubleshooting together: Use the power of collaboration
Use the PubPeer website platform as an opportunity to collaborate with other researchers to address issues and improve the quality of published work.
Why should researchers use PubPeer?
Active participation in post-publication peer review demonstrates a commitment to research integrity and transparency. The most important reason to be a part of the PubPeer community is to make the most of an effective medium to identify and address problems in published work, preventing the propagation of misinformation. Following discussions on PubPeer can also help you stay updated on potential issues and best practices in your field.
PubPeer comments and discussions can lead to new collaborations and connections within the scientific community. Regular and meaningful activity on the PubPeer website increases your visibility, enhances your reputation, and expands your professional network.
It’s not only about giving feedback on the work of others. Your own work stands to benefit from continued post-publication scrutiny, which might highlight errors and issues that might have been missed during peer review. By incorporating feedback from a diverse set of peers, you might be able to further refine your work and future publications. Remember, the process of giving and receiving feedback is a valuable learning experience!
Maximizing your PubPeer experience: Key points
Getting started
Spend time familiarizing yourself with the moderation-related guidelines explained on the PubPeer website. Install and use the extensions provided to search for your own publications or your peers’ publications, provide feedback, or start a conversation.
Some journals may have specific policies regarding how they handle issues raised on PubPeer; acquaint yourself with these policies when addressing concerns.
Receiving feedback
Not all feedback on PubPeer is of high quality. Critically evaluate comments, sifting between constructive criticism and unfounded or unprofessional remarks.
Address criticism openly and professionally. Maintain a respectful and professional tone in all interactions, even when discussing contentious issues.
Engaging with negative feedback can be challenging and distressing. If the commenting blows up into a heated argument online, it can affect a researcher’s reputation. Keep in mind the legal and ethical implications of your comments. Comments made on PubPeer, even if anonymous, may have legal consequences if they are considered defamatory.
Receiving criticism on PubPeer can be emotionally challenging. Develop strategies to handle feedback constructively and maintain a balanced perspective. At the end of the day, constructive remarks on your work matter; do not take personal attacks to heart.
Giving feedback
Before raising concerns about a publication, ensure that your claims are well-founded and supported by evidence. Provide clear explanations and, if possible, supporting data or images to illustrate your points. When appropriate, link discussions on PubPeer to other relevant platforms or resources, such as preprint servers or data repositories. If you have analyzed a paper, be sure to share your analysis for others to verify.
Concluding notes
PubPeer is an innovative means of post-publication peer review. To use it to your advantage, you should engage regularly, provide constructive feedback, respond promptly to comments on your work, and maintain a balanced perspective. By approaching PubPeer with awareness and care, you can contribute to strengthening the scientific process and promote a culture of transparency and continuous improvement in research.
Comments
You're looking to give wings to your academic career and publication journey. We like that!
Why don't we give you complete access! Create a free account and get unlimited access to all resources & a vibrant researcher community.
Subscribe to Career Growth
