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 …
-
Show this thread
-
I've read hundreds of papers with mistakes - errors big and small - at the absolute minimum these should be corrected, but if the entire paper is flawed what else do you do?
3 replies 2 retweets 20 likesShow this thread -
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
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likesShow 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?
2 replies 2 retweets 18 likesShow this thread -
Sorry, initial tweet should read "potential" not "purpose"
5 replies 0 retweets 8 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @GidMK
Wow, imagine if that Andrew Wakefield work hadn’t been retracted. It’s harmed vaccine work enough.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Yep! If you save retraction for only outright fraud then the literature will be littered with nonsense
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.