PubPeer Has (Probably) Stopped Collecting Anonymous Commenters’ IP Addresses

In an attempt to avoid future subpoenas requesting potentially identifying information on unregistered users of the post-publication peer review website, the platform’s administrators have attempted to cease IP address collection.

By | October 4, 2016

WIKIMEDIA, CHIEF PHOTOGRAPHERPubPeer administrators do not want to log the IP addresses of anonymous commenters who post on the website, according to neuroscientist Brandon Stell, a cofounder of the post-publication peer review platform. Stell and colleagues were prompted to make this change following a legal complaint filed by Fazlul Sarkar, a researcher whose publication record has been called into question by PubPeer users commenting anonymously on the site. 

Stell told The Scientist that PubPeer administrators made the decision to stop collecting IP addresses “in the months following” receipt of a letter from Nicholas Roumel, a lawyer representing Sarkar, dated October 9, 2014. Stell added that PubPeer chose to cease collecting and logging IP addresses of anonymous users in order to protect them from future subpoenas like the one that Sarkar’s attorney is pursuing in appellate courts to gain the identities of commenters who allegedly defamed Sarkar, formerly of Wayne State University in Detroit. “If we don’t have the [IP address] information, then, if we’re served with a subpoena . . . we have nothing to give away,” Stell told The Scientist today (October 4), following a Michigan State Court of Appeals hearing (Fazlul Sarkar vs. John Doe) in Detroit.

See “Michigan State Court of Appeals Hears Arguments in PubPeer Litigation

PubPeer administrators considered not collecting IP addresses even before Sarkar’s attorney lodged the legal complaint. In an August 24, 2014 blog post, the then-anonymous founders of the site divulged that PubPeer was receiving legal threats from “a scientist aggrieved at the treatment his papers” were getting on the site. “The possibility of using [potentially identifying information] to threaten users legally constitutes a powerful weapon for chilling open discussion,” the administrators wrote. “As a result, we are reconsidering our version of what is euphemistically known as a ‘data retention policy,’ with a view to retaining less in the future. It seems feasible not to log the source IPs of unregistered comments.”

Today, Stell told The Scientist that the site got rid of all the IP addresses it had logged prior to the ongoing legal action brought by Sarkar’s attorney, but that the administrators are legally bound to keep all of that information related to this case—including present and future comments made in the thread that allegedly contains defamatory statements. “We have deleted everything that is not related to the Sarkar case, and we are only keeping things related to the Sarkar case,” said Stell.

If you are considering posting anonymous comments on PubPeer, for technical reasons, your IP address may still be collected. “Any time anyone accesses the website, it will log an IP address. We turned off that function shortly after receiving the [2014] letter from Sarkar,” Stell explained. But, “we didn’t have the money to hire a technical expert to tell us if we’re not logging anything.”

“To the best of our knowledge, we are not retaining any IP addresses,” he added.

As a result of new funding, Stell said PubPeer will soon be able to say with certainty whether IP addresses are being inadvertently collected from unregistered users of the site. “Now that we have funding and we are making changes to the website, we are going to hire an expert at some point to take a look at that,” he told The Scientist.

Further reading

PubPeer’s Appeal for Anonymity Continues,” The Scientist, January 21, 2016

Debating the Value of Anonymity,” The Scientist, October 5, 2015

PubPeer Founders Revealed,” The Scientist, August 31, 2015

Judge Wants Info on PubPeer Commenter,” The Scientist, March 23, 2015

Judge: PubPeer Users Remain Anonymous,” The Scientist, March 6, 2015

Top Science Scandals of 2014,” The Scientist, December 25, 2014

PubPeer Pushes Back,” The Scientist, December 11, 2014

Pathologist Sues PubPeer Users,” The Scientist, October 27, 2014

Setting the Record Straight,” The Scientist, October 2014

PubPeer: Pathologist Threatening to Sue Users,” The Scientist, September 22, 2014

Concerns Raised Online Linger,” The Scientist, August 25, 2014

PubPeer Threatened with Legal Action,” The Scientist, August 19, 2014

Add a Comment

Avatar of: You

You

Processing...
Processing...

Sign In with your LabX Media Group Passport to leave a comment

Not a member? Register Now!

LabX Media Group Passport Logo

Comments

Avatar of: Weishi Meng

Weishi Meng

Posts: 16

October 9, 2016

Post Publication Peer Review has turned into a major scam. You may read more on this at

https://scienceretractions.wordpress.com/2016/10/06/time-to-sue-post-publication-reviewers-for-false-accusations/

Popular Now

  1. Thousands of Mutations Accumulate in the Human Brain Over a Lifetime
  2. 2017 Top 10 Innovations
    Features 2017 Top 10 Innovations

    From single-cell analysis to whole-genome sequencing, this year’s best new products shine on many levels.

  3. Search for Life on the Red Planet
  4. Two Dozen House Republicans Do an About-Face on Tuition Tax
FreeShip