The Issue of Comment Ownership and Copyright at PubPeer

Abstract

The PubPeer Foundation is a non-profit organization based in California that runs and owns PubPeer, a website that claims to be an online journal club, but that specializes in science whistleblowing while also serving as post-publication peer review site for critique of the published literature. On the footer of the PubPeer top-page, a copyright notice appeared that stated until mid-2017 “Copyright © 2017 PubPeer, LLC” and even until at least April 2018, as “Copyright © 2017 PubPeer Foundation”, only recently updating its copyright statement and clauses. This commentary examines the issue of comment ownership at PubPeer within the realm of copyright. While the structural framework of the site is copyrighted, the majority of the “original” work displayed on that site are signed, anonymous and pseudonymous comments. Does the copyright mark claim copyright to these comments as well given that commentators do not transfer copyright to the PubPeer Foundation? If commentators, even those that are anonymous, hold copyright to their comments, as appears to be the case, but if PubPeer moderates and modifies the content of comments, is this a form of comment manipulation? This issue is relevant to the use of information, comments and otherwise, on the PubPeer website for post-publication peer review. As for fair-use of any copyrighted material, the use of any content from the PubPeer website, including comments, provided it is used in moderation and for non-commercial academic purposes, is within the bounds of fair-use, resembling use under a generic creative commons license. Curiously, a comment about this issue left at the website of another science watchdog, Retraction Watch, which shares a mutual source of funding with PubPeer, the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, was not published.

Keywords

• Opacity versus transparency
• Philanthropy and charity
• Post-publication peer review
• PubPeer Foundation
• Science watchdogs
• Whistle-blowing