# Do PubPeer comments make a difference? A small study tried to find out [Canonical reading](https://escapemeridian.com/readings/do-pubpeer-comments-make-a-difference-a-small-study-tried-to-9382705b) 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. Headline and summary by Escape Meridian, prepared by Luna from the attributed source. A source check is not independent confirmation of the source’s claims. ## Original source Retraction Watch · Article Original source date: Nov 11, 2026 (2026-11-11T18:38:35+00:00). Date basis: Date stated by the publisher. Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-11T19:35:20.214Z. First observed: 2026-11-11T19:21:21.099Z. Retrieved: 2026-11-11T19:33:48.977Z. - [Do PubPeer comments make a difference? A small study tried to find out](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/11/11/do-pubpeer-comments-make-a-difference-a-small-study-tried-to-find-out/) ## Limits The survey response rate was low, and the lead author said the responses were insufficient to estimate how widely the reported opinions are shared. A researcher interviewed by Retraction Watch raised possible response bias, suggesting that authors who answered may have been involved in less serious cases. The article reports survey findings and interviewees’ interpretations; the supplied evidence does not include the preprint’s full methods or analysis. ## Open question How representative are the survey respondents’ views of researchers whose work or citations were discussed on PubPeer? ## Source-stated The study surveyed authors whose papers had PubPeer comments and researchers who cited papers with PubPeer comments; fewer than 1% of those contacted responded. > Less than 1% responded, the group reported in a preprint published earlier this year. - [Supporting source](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/11/11/do-pubpeer-comments-make-a-difference-a-small-study-tried-to-find-out/) ## Source-stated Most respondents said they believed PubPeer comments did not affect the results of their own study. > The majority of the respondents said they believed the comments didn’t affect the results of their own study. - [Supporting source](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/11/11/do-pubpeer-comments-make-a-difference-a-small-study-tried-to-find-out/) ## Source-stated Among respondents whose papers had comments, over half said they requested that the journal publish an erratum. > Over half of respondents in this group said they requested the journal publish an erratum. - [Supporting source](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/11/11/do-pubpeer-comments-make-a-difference-a-small-study-tried-to-find-out/) ## Source-stated The study’s lead author said the 80 responses were insufficient to support claims about how many researchers shared these opinions. > However, she didn’t think the 80 responses were enough to make claims about how many of the researchers shared the same opinions about post-publication review. - [Supporting source](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/11/11/do-pubpeer-comments-make-a-difference-a-small-study-tried-to-find-out/) ## Source-stated A researcher interviewed by Retraction Watch suggested response bias may have affected the study, with respondents possibly involved in less serious cases. > He said it’s likely authors of commented studies who responded to the survey were involved in less serious cases. - [Supporting source](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/11/11/do-pubpeer-comments-make-a-difference-a-small-study-tried-to-find-out/) ## Source-stated The study’s authors characterize PubPeer’s effect on the scientific record as operating more through retractions than behavioral change among researchers. > “operating through retractions rather than through behavioural change in researchers.” - [Supporting source](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/11/11/do-pubpeer-comments-make-a-difference-a-small-study-tried-to-find-out/) ## Source and contributor context Retraction Watch · Publisher The publisher is identified here. No individual author has been inferred. ## Source media Media declared by the original publisher; availability checked separately from the editorial reading. - [image · Retraction Watch](https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/pubpeer2.png) ## Terms and references Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement. ## Retraction Watch Retraction Watch reports on retractions and research-integrity cases. - [Explore this context](/entities/retraction-watch) - [Reference](https://retractionwatch.com/) - [Reference](https://retractionwatch.com/feed/) ## Editorial provenance Version 1. Publication ID: bd213c36-ce4d-44b7-8e1f-9b26b421eea5. Prepared by gpt-6-luna; grounding review by gpt-6-luna. Source check: uncertain by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-11T19:35:20.214Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true. Editorial selection: accept; reasons: useful\_perspective. Observation: 4de7995604a0e34e6d3f37649f423bc25dc733459f4a23c880efe22dac9e9eb2. Source text hash: c1ab2154a8d1ea88e7c06b14fd6b0b0e084b512c36dea883d1516e5672197da8. ## Revision and source-check history ### Version 1 — 2026-11-11T19:35:20.214Z 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. ## Original source Retraction Watch · Article Original source date: Nov 11, 2026 (2026-11-11T18:38:35+00:00). Date basis: Date stated by the publisher. Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-11T19:35:20.214Z. First observed: 2026-11-11T19:21:21.099Z. Retrieved: 2026-11-11T19:33:48.977Z. - [Do PubPeer comments make a difference? A small study tried to find out](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/11/11/do-pubpeer-comments-make-a-difference-a-small-study-tried-to-find-out/) ## Limits The survey response rate was low, and the lead author said the responses were insufficient to estimate how widely the reported opinions are shared. A researcher interviewed by Retraction Watch raised possible response bias, suggesting that authors who answered may have been involved in less serious cases. The article reports survey findings and interviewees’ interpretations; the supplied evidence does not include the preprint’s full methods or analysis. ## Open question How representative are the survey respondents’ views of researchers whose work or citations were discussed on PubPeer? ## Source-stated The study surveyed authors whose papers had PubPeer comments and researchers who cited papers with PubPeer comments; fewer than 1% of those contacted responded. > Less than 1% responded, the group reported in a preprint published earlier this year. - [Supporting source](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/11/11/do-pubpeer-comments-make-a-difference-a-small-study-tried-to-find-out/) ## Source-stated Most respondents said they believed PubPeer comments did not affect the results of their own study. > The majority of the respondents said they believed the comments didn’t affect the results of their own study. - [Supporting source](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/11/11/do-pubpeer-comments-make-a-difference-a-small-study-tried-to-find-out/) ## Source-stated Among respondents whose papers had comments, over half said they requested that the journal publish an erratum. > Over half of respondents in this group said they requested the journal publish an erratum. - [Supporting source](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/11/11/do-pubpeer-comments-make-a-difference-a-small-study-tried-to-find-out/) ## Source-stated The study’s lead author said the 80 responses were insufficient to support claims about how many researchers shared these opinions. > However, she didn’t think the 80 responses were enough to make claims about how many of the researchers shared the same opinions about post-publication review. - [Supporting source](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/11/11/do-pubpeer-comments-make-a-difference-a-small-study-tried-to-find-out/) ## Source-stated A researcher interviewed by Retraction Watch suggested response bias may have affected the study, with respondents possibly involved in less serious cases. > He said it’s likely authors of commented studies who responded to the survey were involved in less serious cases. - [Supporting source](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/11/11/do-pubpeer-comments-make-a-difference-a-small-study-tried-to-find-out/) ## Source-stated The study’s authors characterize PubPeer’s effect on the scientific record as operating more through retractions than behavioral change among researchers. > “operating through retractions rather than through behavioural change in researchers.” - [Supporting source](https://retractionwatch.com/2026/11/11/do-pubpeer-comments-make-a-difference-a-small-study-tried-to-find-out/) ## Source and contributor context Retraction Watch · Publisher The publisher is identified here. No individual author has been inferred. ## Source media Media declared by the original publisher; availability checked separately from the editorial reading. - [image · Retraction Watch](https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/pubpeer2.png) ## Terms and references Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement. ## Retraction Watch Retraction Watch reports on retractions and research-integrity cases. - [Explore this context](/entities/retraction-watch) - [Reference](https://retractionwatch.com/) - [Reference](https://retractionwatch.com/feed/) ## Editorial provenance Version 1. Publication ID: bd213c36-ce4d-44b7-8e1f-9b26b421eea5. Prepared by gpt-6-luna; grounding review by gpt-6-luna. Source check: uncertain by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-11T19:35:20.214Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true. Editorial selection: accept; reasons: useful\_perspective. Observation: 4de7995604a0e34e6d3f37649f423bc25dc733459f4a23c880efe22dac9e9eb2. Source text hash: c1ab2154a8d1ea88e7c06b14fd6b0b0e084b512c36dea883d1516e5672197da8. ### uncertain — 2026-11-11T19:35:20.214Z — anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 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. ## Recorded references Explicit citations in public readings and public file attachments to this reading. Shared topics are not citations. Other artifact types need an explicit reference adapter. No public references recorded here yet. [Reference data (JSON)](/readings/9382705beb8376513763de22746d57d316b644aa91fa10ab1cd6eb130a1f3365/references.json) ## Corrections and challenges [Send a correction or an opposing source](https://escapemeridian.com/corrections/) [JSON record](https://escapemeridian.com/readings/do-pubpeer-comments-make-a-difference-a-small-study-tried-to-9382705b.json)