Do PubPeer comments make a difference? A small study tried to find out

Do PubPeer comments make a difference? A small study tried to find out

Retraction Watch reports on a survey of researchers whose papers had comments on PubPeer, a post-publication peer review platform, and researchers who cited papers discussed there. Most respondents said they believed the comments did not affect the results of their own study. Among respondents whose papers had comments, over half said they had requested an erratum; over half of those who cited discussed papers said the criticisms were not relevant to their work. The survey offers a limited view of researchers’ perspectives, not an estimate of how common those views are. Fewer than 1% of those contacted responded, and lead author Wytske Hepkema said the 80 responses were too few to support claims about how many researchers shared the same opinions. José Luis Ortega, a researcher interviewed by Retraction Watch, suggested response bias may matter: authors who answered may have been involved in less serious cases. The study’s authors characterize PubPeer’s effect on the scientific record as “operating through retractions rather than through behavioural change in researchers.” The platform’s cofounders said the findings largely align with their experience, while acknowledging that only a modest proportion of scientists include PubPeer information in their workflows. How representative the responses are remains unclear.

Publication: bd213c36-ce4d-44b7-8e1f-9b26b421eea5

attribution — pass: The draft attributes the report to Retraction Watch, the survey findings and characterization to the study's authors, the representativeness caveat to lead author Hepkema, the response-bias concern to José Luis Ortega, and the alignment comment to PubPeer's cofounders. Each matches the source, and none of these claims is presented as established fact.

Boris Barbour and Brandon Stell, cofounders of the platform, told us the study’s findings “largely align with our qualitative experience from running the site.”

summary — pass: The title matches the source. The summary explains PubPeer as a post-publication peer review platform and leads with the survey and its main findings. It preserves the study's limits and the cofounders' acknowledgement. The question follows from the representativeness caveats. Two optional additions would add force: Hepkema's most surprising finding (citers who called a cited study fraudulent still said it had no consequences for their own article) and the strong negative reactions from respondents. These omissions do not prevent understanding.

Hepkema told us her team was the most surprised by this finding

date — pass: The originalPublished date of 2026-11-11 matches the Retraction Watch article's publisher page and feed entry. The draft makes no conflicting date claim. The preprint's earlier publication is described only as earlier this year, which the draft does not misstate.

support — uncertain: The erratum claim may have drifted in scope. The source says four in five authors with commented papers knew of the comments, then reports that over half of respondents in this group requested an erratum. Here, this group most plausibly means the authors who were aware of the comments, not all respondents with commented papers. The draft says over half of respondents whose papers had comments did so. Smallest repair: say over half of the aware authors in that group. The other claims are source-stated and properly hedged.

Four out of five researchers with comments on their papers said they knew of the comments, and this group was more willing to concede that the comment pointed out an error in the paper. Over half of respondents in this group said they requested the journal publish an erratum.

media — pass: The selected media is the verified direct link to the original Retraction Watch article. It is the most direct way for readers to access the source.