PubPeer Selections: correction for Cell paper on stem cells; why omit controls; peer review report surfaces

pubpeerHere’s another installment of PubPeer Selections:


Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on X or Bluesky, like us on Facebook, follow us on LinkedIn, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].


3 thoughts on “PubPeer Selections: correction for Cell paper on stem cells; why omit controls; peer review report surfaces”

  1. For more information on Oncotarget see:
    The blog of Rédaction Médicale et Scientifique/Medical and Scientific Editing. – Danger, danger: predatory journals are well made and easy to trap naïve … I meet a lot of naive experts.
    http://www.h2mw.eu/redactionmedicale/2015/05/cf-infra-proc%C3%A9dure-acc%C3%A9l%C3%A9r%C3%A9e-dacceptation-des-articles-rejet%C3%A9s-tr%C3%A8s-sinc%C3%A8rement-dr-alain-braillon-unit.html

    There are also 2 recent comments about Oncotarget in PubPeer https://pubpeer.com/publications/AB03B75755E41CCD96D13C3E7D9DBC#fb32440
    – Unregistered Submission: (June 24th, 2015 1:07pm UTC )
    – Peer 3: (June 24th, 2015 5:56pm UTC )

  2. In principle Publons is a good place for peer reviews; but publishers have not agreed with it in most terms. Thing is, you post in PubPeer, some editors may figure out who you are.

Leave a Reply

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