PubPeer

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.

-1/2: Glitchy - e.g. says there's a note on PMID 33057181, but doesn't display one. -1/2: Shadowbans some comments. (Censors them from view, except to the author) It's informative to look up the people who put up 1-star votes in PubPeer, e.g. AKP brings up TWO RETRACTED articles; their PubMed IDs are 30685132 and 23069613.

I strongly disagree with the practice of using a fictitious name on PubPeer, particularly when it is associated with an author who comments on scientific articles. This behavior is cowardly and should not be encouraged. Instead, it is important to promote the use of official university or organizational email addresses, along with the full name and affiliation of the researcher, to ensure transparency and accountability.