PubPeer : Le phénomène qui fait peur à la science

PubPeer est un site qui permet aux utilisateurs (principalement anonymes) de discuter et d’examiner des productions scientifiques, de participer à des analyses et des discussions post-publication, mais aussi de signaler des soupçons de manquements à l’éthique scientifique[ 1]. Your only option is to create a new account. If comments only involve immediately verifiable facts there should be no difficulty in proving the truth of the statements. Further information is available here. If you wish to report personal knowledge, you must sign your comment. No. We do not aim to reproduce it but to complement it with something different. Certains chercheurs dénoncent en PubPeer un système de délation, mais Le Monde note dans un éditorial que le site « a pourtant mis au jour de véritables fraudes, et n’existe qu’en raison de l’incapacité de la science à répliquer ses résultats et à s’autocorriger efficacement » [ 11]. We may draw the line at issues that have no significant bearing on the science, its interpretation or its presentation. Comments submitted via an account (named or pseudonym) can be edited after submission, until another comment is submitted. We and other readers have no way of evaluating the motivations or potential conflicts of interests of anonymous commenters.

More philosophically, it is rarely possible to make a definitive judgement and PubPeer is certainly not in a position to do so systematically. We (will soon) have an API.

net. Please be more careful next time. Low-volume image and tabular data can be posted directly on the site (although tables may be tedious to format). Please help us by reporting any comments you believe do not respect our guidelines (a button is provided on each comment). ) On ne peut pas se permettre de jeter la suspicion sur le travail des gens. Of course, those best placed to explain a publication are usually its authors, which is why we do everything we can to encourage and facilitate their responses. Authors occasionally use the critical tone of some comments as a pretext for not responding on the site. The site is operated by the PubPeer Foundation; see About. En conséquence, les commentaires sur PubPeer sont tenus d’argumenter uniquement avec des preuves des arguments qui peuvent être publiquement vérifiables[ 15].

There are special facilities for indicating author responses. By using the site, commenters agree to abide by the terms of service detailed here. It is unfortunately very easy to spoof the “From” and “Reply-to” fields in email headers, although this can often be revealed by examining the full headers and routing information in detail. Readers must perform their own scientific evaluation.

Authors can respond.

The British libel system is notorious in regard of the difficulty and cost of defending even totally meritless suits, but lawyers cost a lot of money everywhere. org and pubpeer. Many comments concern research or presentation methods that users consider not to be best practice.

Please cite your sources to allow easy verification. PubPeer does automatically send simple alerts from the above domains to authors whose papers are commented.

Note however, that reproduction of figures and text for the purpose of “criticism” falls squarely under the Fair Use exception of copyright legislation in the US, where PubPeer is incorporated and where the site is hosted.

This usually occurs because the DOI has not been correctly indexed. Des accusations de diffamation ont été adressées à certains des contributeurs de PubPeer[ 12] ,[ 13] ,[ 14]. PubPeer gives users control of their anonymity and minimizes the user information held.

Such IDs include the DOI and IDs for PubMed and the ArXiv. Although it is good to be concise, a minimum of context and explanation can be very helpful to readers, so please consider providing this even if it does require extra work. Larger data sets are better submitted to a specialist provider (such as Dryad http://datadryad.

However, everybody can evaluate the substance of a comment, which we feel is more informative and fundamental. PubPeer will never willingly reveal and will never sell user information.

The truth is of course a strong defense in any defamation/libel case. Numbers of comments should also be interpreted with great caution.


Moreover, resolving many issues would require access to the original data, which are usually unavailable.

Moderation ensures that comments are factual and verifiable. Pendant que les présidents de l’Office français de l’intégrité scientifique (OFIS) et du Hcéres, où est installé l’OFIS, sont auditionnés par l’Office parlementaire d’évaluation des […]. com, pubpeer. To implement scientific review on PubPeer would anyway be wholly impractical: PubPeer does not have the resources to address a quality-control problem that the planetary publishing industry has been unable to solve. Even for apparently serious issues, there can often be an innocent explanation, which is why authors are encouraged to clarify and defend their work, and to join in the community effort to define best practice. org/ or figshare https://figshare.

PubPeer does not review comments scientifically (see above), so factual comments conforming to our guidelines may still be wrong, misguided or unconvincing. We will vigorously oppose unfounded or vexatious takedown notices.

p=143), the browser plugins highlight on any web page publications that have been discussed on PubPeer. .

All readers should evaluate comments for themselves. No problem.

Note also that we back up external images and can therefore usually replace any taken down by external sites.

We believe good scientists distinguish themselves by responding effectively to questions about their work. ) Imaginez que de façon anonyme on puisse vous accuser de pédophilie… je pense que on est un peu dans le même ordre de grandeur. A preview pane is provided when you prepare your comment.

We collect only the information required for site operation. We make every effort to alert the authors to any comments and they are encouraged to respond. It also greatly reduces the legal risks to PubPeer and to you.

    In particular, this works on PubMed search results and journal web sites. Copyright ©2017 | Ethics & Integrity. PubPeer accepts all types of comments about papers. However, our aim is not just to have a strong defense, but never to need one, since defending any case will cost money that maybe neither you nor we have.

    Catégories de l'article :
    Show Buttons
    Hide Buttons