PubPeer

PubPeer is an online platform founded in 2012 that enables researchers and other interested parties to post commentary and critique on already-published scientific papers (i.e., post-publication peer review) under the motto of accelerating scientific correction and enhancing transparency. It operates as a non-profit initiative (the PubPeer Foundation, a 501(c)(3) public-benefit corporation) dedicated to maintaining the website for community-driven review of the scientific literature. Users can search by paper title, DOI or author, and then leave comments—often anonymously—which makes the platform distinctive. In many cases, these discussions focus on image duplications, methodological issues, data inconsistencies or other concerns that may not have been caught during the original peer-review process. The platform has grown in influence: as of a recent award announcement, it was credited with being involved in discussions linked to around 19 % of all paper retractions since its founding.  Because of its often anonymity-friendly structure and open access to comment threads, PubPeer has become a tool not only for academics but also for journalists, meta-researchers and institutions seeking to detect problems in the literature. 

User-Reported Issues & Caveats:
While PubPeer offers a powerful channel for community scrutiny, users and commentators have raised several concerns:

• Anonymity leading to concerns about accountability and defamation: The platform permits anonymous commentary, which enables whistle-blowing but also raises issues of how to verify identity and avoid potential misuse (e.g., unfounded allegations). For example, a court case in Michigan sought to compel PubPeer to hand over user information for commenters–highlighting the legal risk of anonymous posts. 
• Quality and tone of comments: Some users feel the platform may encourage a “gotcha” culture or disproportionate focus on apparent image manipulations over deeper methodological issues. One Reddit user described it as:
  “It’s less journal club and more WikiLeaks.”
• Limited author or journal engagement: Many comments remain without formal response from authors or editors, some journals may ignore issues flagged on PubPeer, which reduces the corrective impact. 
• Bias in what gets flagged: Studies show disproportionate attention to life/health sciences, open access papers and visual issues (e.g., image duplication) versus broader methodological or theoretical problems, this may reflect either research community priorities or ease of flagging. 
• Potential for reputational damage without formal review: Because the critiques are informal and not always linked to a formal editorial process, flagged papers (and their authors) may suffer reputational harm even when issues are later judged minor or unsubstantiated.