摘要：

目的 评估PubPeer质疑评论对论文撤稿的推动作用，为期刊完善出版后同行评议机制提供实证依据。 方法 以2019年诺贝尔生理学或医学奖得主格雷格·塞门扎（Gregg L. Semenza）被撤稿的15篇论文为案例，收集其在PubPeer上的评论数据，并与官方撤稿声明进行内容比对，计算从首次质疑到正式撤稿的时滞。 结果 在15篇撤稿论文中，有14篇在PubPeer上受到过质疑；内容分析结果显示，这14篇撤稿论文的首条关键质疑评论提前至少23个月指出后续被撤稿的核心问题；在质疑评论出现到撤稿过程中，仅1篇论文有1条作者回应，仅3篇论文所在期刊发布“编辑关注”或“更正”。以上结果表明，PubPeer虽能有效识别学术错误，但其质疑向正式撤稿的转化存在显著延迟。这一延迟源于平台公信力争议、主体责任衔接脱节及公共讨论参与不足。 结论 建议期刊建立出版后同行评议制度，提升社区质疑响应速度，同时通过构建可持续的出版后同行评议贡献认可体系，从而推动出版后同行评议在学术治理中发挥更实质性的作用。

关键词: 出版后同行评议, PubPeer, 质疑评论, 论文撤稿

Abstract:

Purposes This study aims to evaluate the role of critical comments on PubPeer in driving article retractions， and to provide empirical evidence for journals to improve post-publication peer review mechanisms. Methods This study examined 15 retracted papers authored by 2019 Nobel Prize winner in Physiology or Medicine， Gregg L. Semenza. Comment data were systematically collected from the PubPeer platform and compared with official retraction notices. The time lag from the first critical comment to the formal retraction was calculated. Findings Among the 15 retracted papers， 14 had been questioned on PubPeer. Content analysis revealed that in these 14 retracted papers， the first critical comment had identified the core issues at least 23 months prior to the eventual retraction. During the period from the emergence of criticism to retraction， only one article received a single author response， and journals issued an “Editor’s Note” or “Correction” for only three papers. These findings indicate that while PubPeer can effectively identify academic errors， there is a significant delay in translating its criticism into formal retraction actions. This delay stems from three interrelated factors： ongoing debates over platform credibility， disconnections in stakeholder responsibilities， and insufficient public participation in discussions. Conclusions It is recommended that journals implement post-publication peer review systems to enhance responsiveness to community criticism， and establish sustainable contribution recognition mechanisms to strengthen the role of post-publication peer review in academic governance.

Key words: Post-publication peer review, PubPeer, Critical comment, Article retraction