PubPeer

Show links to existing PubPeer comments

PubPeer Chrome Extension: Access Peer Reviews Easily

The 'PubPeer' extension is a proficient tool built to assist users in accessing peer comments on various articles. It operates by flashing alerts to the user if the said article possesses any comments on PubPeer, a widely respected platform for post-publication peer review. Lightweight and low maintenance, this is an excellent aid for anyone involved in academic research. Note: PubPeer and this extension are not affiliated with PubMed or any journals.

Download

Extension stats

By: https://pubpeer.com

Users: 20,000+

Rating: 3.60

(30)

0.05

Version: 1.7.1 (Last updated: 2024-11-29)

Creation date: 2020-04-16

Risk impact: Moderate risk impact

Risk likelihood:

Very low risk likelihood

Manifest version: 3

Permissions:

webNavigation
scripting
storage

Host permissions:

http://*/*
https://*/*

Size: 45.79K

Email: co*****@pubpeer.com

URLs: Website

Ranking

# 6,630 ▲ 61

Other rankings

#216 in Tools ▲ 1 #71 in plugin keyword 77 ▲ 13 #267 in install keyword 67 ▲ 5

Other platforms

Not available on Android

PubPeer (v1.7.1)

4.70

(20) 3,995+

PubPeer (v1.6.2)

0.00

(0) 8,027+

Want to check extension ranking and stats more quickly for other Chrome extensions? Install Chrome-Stats extension to view Chrome-Stats data as you browse the Chrome Web Store.

Extension summary

Analyze keywords

This plugin indicates PubPeer comments wherever they appear. A lightweight plugin to install and forget about. You will only notice that the plugin exists when it alerts you that an article has comments on PubPeer.

*No affiliation with the PubMed nor any journals.

User reviews

These summaries are automatically generated weekly using AI based on recent user reviews. Chrome Web Store does not verify user reviews, so some user reviews may be inaccurate, spammy, or outdated.

Pros

Valuable project for promoting transparency in science.
Works well for displaying notifications on PubMed and journals.
Useful extension for engaging with scientific criticisms.

Cons

Usability issues, including the PubPeer bar appearing after page load causing layout shifts.
Random pop-ups on non-PubPeer pages are unacceptable.
Some comments on articles are not particularly enlightening or relevant.

Most mentioned

Concerns about the use of pseudonyms leading to lack of trust.
Need for peer-reviewed and scientifically articulated comments.
Glitchy behavior, including shadowbanning some comments.

User reviews

useful extension. as others have said, run the names of the 1 star reviews through it, as they seem to be scorned by the service more than anything.

D Starling, 2024-12-13

This website has become a breeding ground for bias and jealousy. I firmly disagree with the use of pseudonyms on PubPeer, particularly when individuals make comments on academic papers. This conduct erodes trust and should not be condoned. Rather, we should promote the utilization of official university or institutional email addresses, along with the researcher’s complete name and affiliated organization, to foster transparency and responsibility. Constructive and transparent criticism is beneficial when it includes the critic's real name and academic email address.

Mohammad Olfati, 2024-11-29

Once individuals present themselves as a known entity, I trust that they pose genuine, scientifically relevant questions. Otherwise, it appears as an attempt to undermine others cowardly and unscientifically. Open discussion of published studies and data interpretation is beneficial, but comments should be peer-reviewed and articulated scientifically to address specific concerns. I am more than happy to address questions from individuals who identify themselves, allowing me to gauge their professional background, work quality, and ethical conduct. Engaging with an AI and being confined to a questioning box feels unfair. Transparency and mutual respect are key in these interactions.