Chrome-Stats extension
PubPeer
Show links to existing PubPeer comments
Total ratings for PubPeer
3.73
(Rating count:
26)
User reviews summary
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spammy, or outdated.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
- open discussion of published studies
- valuable project
- displays notifications on PubMed, journal websites and search engines
Cons
- anonynmous accounts not allowed
- only scientists who have published something can post
- comment section not open to everyone
Most mentioned
- an anonymous account not allowed
Upgrade to see all 20 reviews
Recent reviews for PubPeer
Recent rating average:
3.40
All time rating average:
3.73
Upgrade to see all 20 reviews
Rating filters
5 star
4 star
3 star
2 star
1 star
| Date | Author | Rating | Lang | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-03-16 |  |
|
en | 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. |
| 2024-01-24 |  |
|
en | The idea of open discussion of published studies is good, but the comments need to be peer-reviewed and describe the concerns in a scientific manner. Further, there is no reason to use pseudonyms. If the plan is to question data or interpretation, it should be done openly. |
| 2022-07-25 |  |
|
This is really valuable project, huge respect for the people behind it. The usability of the extension could of course be better, like all of the internet. This is an open source project and people interested about the transparency of the science can contribute by donating the project money or their expertise. | |
| 2022-04-05 |  |
|
PubPeer seems like a good project and I fully agree with the idea of open comments. This browser extension works well, but is often a bit annoying: the PubPeer bar at the top of the page appears only after the page has loaded, which causes the page contents to suddenly shift down. This could be fixed by having another indicator (maybe a small fixed-pos sidebar like Scite or Hypothesis do). Another problem is mentioned by Balázs Knakker below: The PubPeer bar appears and says "There are 2 articles on this page with PubPeer comments" (neither of those comments were particularly enlightening or relevant to article I was quickly checking out). This makes the high saliency of the PubPeer bar not worth it. | |
| 2021-09-25 |  |
|
Works great. I use it all the time. PubPeer is a vitally important tool for holding the practice of science to the ideals of science. | |
| 2021-06-24 |  |
|
Seems to be working great! Displays notifications on PubMed, journal websites and search engines. Can click through from the notification to the PubPeer page. Thanks | |
| 2021-06-24 |  |
|
nice | |
| 2020-12-11 |  |
|
Random pop-ups on non-pubpeer pages are unacceptable. (got pop-up idk about what on google.com) | |
| 2020-04-03 | John Lu |
|
When using PubMed, the displayed article is another article, which is not accurate enough | |
| 2019-12-18 | Balázs Knakker |
|
I love and highly appreciate PubPeer, but I find the way the extension works annoying and misguided. In particular, I am not interested in whether cited or linked papers on a page have comments on PubPeer or not. Really, never. I think it would make a lot more sense to just show the top bar if the currently viewed paper has comments on pubpeer. Perhaps comments of linked papers could get a little number in the app's icon, or just could be left out altogether. |
Upgrade to see all 20 reviews