Description of the initiative

This post-publication peer review initiative is part of Work Package 3 of the NanoBubbles project.

Why do we publish comments on PubPeer?

Misconceptions, errors and inconsistencies are common in the scientific literature. Bio-nanoscience is no exception. Our aim is to use PubPeer as a space where a discussion of articles between scientists can take place. In particular we hope that authors of the articles that we comment will respond with their own contributions and that other experts might join in. In this way we can collectively progress towards a more solid shared understanding of nanoparticles properties and applications.

How do we select the articles that we review?

In the first instance, our main focus is on articles reporting intracellular detection or intracellular sensing based on nanomaterials. For this purpose, in this early stage of our project we areusing the Web of Science and PubMed to retrieve articles that include terms such as “nanoparticles”, “intracellular”, “detection” “endosomal escape”, “sensing”, “endocytosis” and “cytosol”. We use alerts to monitor new publications. Beyond this main focus, sometimes we post comments on other articles, e.g. some that are presented by master or PhD students during internal journal clubs.

How do we do post-publication peer review?

First, we individually and carefully read the article. We identify the important claims and evaluate how they are substantiated either by the cited literature or by the presented results. The entire article is analysed in terms of methodologies, rationale, consistency, and jointly discussed before the collective decision concerning which points will be flagged in our PPPR. In doing this, we follow the PubPeer commenting guidelines.

Where can I find the PubPeer comments?

You can find the PubPeer comments here.

Search OpenEdition Search

You will be redirected to OpenEdition Search