PubPeer Selections: Promoting homeopathy; comments lead to Cell and JBC corrections

pubpeerPubPeer failed to convince a Michigan judge last week that they should be able to keep the identity of one of their commenters confidential. Here’s another installment of PubPeer Selections:

Like Retraction Watch? Consider supporting our growth. You can also follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, and sign up on our homepage for an email every time there’s a new post.

4 thoughts on “PubPeer Selections: Promoting homeopathy; comments lead to Cell and JBC corrections”

  1. I noticed an error in one of my manuscripts the other day. I notified the editor of the BMC journal, and it turned out I had the option of an erratum and a “comment” in the journal. I suppose the option of using a comment is there to increase turnaround, but my concern is whether or not such comments will follow the manuscript when people get manuscripts from PubMed or Google Scholar.

    1. The option to leave a comment to correct an article should only be available for very minor issues, such as typos. I think this is also the official BMC policy.

    2. An erratum in a BMC journal will be included on PubMed as a note associated with both the summary and the abstract. On Google Scholar, an erratum appears as a separate publication; I don’t see any obvious link from the original entry. Comments appear only on the journal website.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.