PubPeer is an online platform that allows participants to comment on scientific articles after they have already been published. This supplements the traditional peer review process which occurs before publication.
PubPeer is operated by the nonprofit PubPeer Foundation. Harej developed the service on PubPeer's behalf.
Reviewing journal articles after they have been published can help surface issues that were not uncovered in the original peer review. It can also help identify subsequent developments that would not have been known to the article authors at the time. These issues can include anything from typos to errors of fact, misrepresentations, and potentially even academic fraud.
Not necessarily. Sometimes, the comments only point to minor criticism that do not affect the overall reliability of that source, at least in the context of how that source is used in that Wikipedia article. Some comments are actually positive. The purpose of this report is to provide potentially relevant feedback to editors, not to create a list of "bad journal articles".
Whether a citation should be removed from a Wikipedia article depends on the nature of the criticism and what kind of claims the source is being used to justify. Criticisms on PubPeer are often attributed anonymously and should be evaluated on their own merits.
These lists are automatically updated by Reports bot as citations are added and removed from articles and as new comments are added to PubPeer.
We are working on allowing users to directly annotate the bot-produced lists to "dismiss" comments so that they stop appearing in the report. However, this feature is not yet available. Note that if a citation is removed from an article, or if the article as a whole is deleted, the lists are automatically updated.
We are interested in developing sub-lists for specific WikiProjects or editors working in particular areas. If you would like a version of this report tailored to your work, let Harej know.