I could not disagree with this more. If we do not retract flawed research with the purpose to cause harm, what is the point of retraction at all?https://twitter.com/NAChristakis/status/1329471888180072452 …
-
-
I think this attitude often harks back to decades long past, where you had a physical journal where letters to the editor were read as much as studies themselves
Show this thread -
But these days, letters are barely read, but studies often go viral and are seen by 100,000s. What's even the point of writing a letter if it doesn't lead to correction/retraction?
Show this thread -
Sorry, initial tweet should read "potential" not "purpose"
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Didn’t Andrew Wakefield’s MMR vaccine study get retracted some 10-12 years after? Did a lot of damage in that time!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Please explain how this paper had the “purpose” of causing “harm.” And please identify which other papers you have publicly called for to be retracted from among these “hundreds” of papers?
-
I wasn't referring to this specific paper, and "purpose" was a typo - I meant "potential". I rarely publicly call for retractions, but I think intrinsic flaws in a paper are of course a reason to retract
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.