How the post-publication peer review subproject has evolved so far

The post-publication peer review (PPPR) initiative in NanoBubbles aims to correct science through the critical analysis of articles. So far, we have been focused on the intracellular detection by nanoparticles, which first requires the nanomaterials to be uptaken inside cells and then access the cytosol. We find that most articles do not mention the mechanism of uptake, nor the escape from the endosomes. Moreover, in many cases the intracellular localisation of the nanoparticles cannot be concluded based on the data presented. You can read more about our process.

In the last months, based on our first observations and our ambition to cover a large number of articles, we have been evolving in the approach used to analyse and comment on the selected publications (read more here). The focus is now on the rationale (Is it justified? Do the results validate the proposed claims? What is the importance of sensing or imaging the target inside cells? When applications are claimed to be supported by the described methods, how difficult will be the translation “from the bench”?). We also evaluate the discussion of uptake mechanism and endosomal escape, taking into consideration the presented images of cells incubated with the nanoparticles. Other common issues identified during the critical analysis include overstatements of the applied methodology or results, and problems with nanoparticles characterisation.

In this subproject, we aim to bring to the attention of nanoscientists community that flaws in the literature are more common than we expect, and correcting such records is not only important for transparency, but also to avoid the spread of “bubbles” in the nanobiosciences field. Anyone can easily help in science correction by sharing his or her findings in PubPeer, and the comments do not need to be extensive or the author of the post identified. Some authors are open to self-correction, as shown for example by this response to one of our PPPRs.