Retraction Watch article: New feature aims to draw journals into post-publication comments on PubPeer

Not sure if this will be of interest to anybody but thought I might as well post it.

http://retractionwatch.com/2017/12/11/new-feature-aims-draw-journals-pubpeer-conversations/

 

There are so many good and important comments made criticising junk CFS papers on pubmed commons.... not seen a single researcher respond to them.

 

Yet I think it could be extremely helpful to have all of David Tuller's ( @dave30th ) criticism, also regarding MUS, on pubpeer, too. Could be also better searchable than Virology blog and S4ME.

https://pubpeer.com/static/about

Since there are sometimes people asking for easy volunteer work, perhaps this could be a project worth working on?

Edited to add link to PubPeer.

 

I wonder if it's possible to also post links to forum discussions, including critique on biomedical research papers, with some quotes?

 

not aware of PubPeer before;
PACE trial is up there
https://pubpeer.com/publications/B746FEC462E026347C5D46BB6A7644

eta: doesn't seem that difficult to add a comment.

might be partly because (if the PACE trial entry is anything to go by, they don't have all the authors email addresses (this is on PubPeer, don't know about pubmed commons).

 

Not ME or MUS related, but some maybe interesting interaction on PubPeer following criticism of biomedical research:

Code:

https://twitter.com/microbiomdigest/status/1356722780826386433

Perhaps worthwhile to keep putting criticism on all sort of badly designed ME and MUS research on that platform, too? (Plus, always ensure to add the authors' e-mail addresses?)

@dave30th @Michiel Tack @Caroline Struthers @Brian Hughes

(Apologies for being repetitive -- just saw I posted the same idea a while ago.)