Here’s another installment of PubPeer Selections:
- The corresponding author of a PNAS paper corrects it in response to critiques on PubPeer.
- Two months after PubPeer commenters raise questions about figures in a PLOS Pathogens paper, the authors publish a correction of the questioned images.
- Were claims that a group had visualized hydrogen bonds overconfident?
- How far back should post-publication peer review go? A commenter says a highly cited paper from 1980 should have provided more details.
- The discussion of a prostate cancer marker paper provides more fodder for the “do motivations of critics matter” debate.