But that's what I'm saying!
-
-
Replying to @K_Sheldrick @GidMK
Did you meant to have "not" in the original tweet?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @K_Sheldrick
Lol I think you may have misread? I said that the idea that journals rarely publish flawed research is an absurd misapprehension
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @K_Sheldrick @GidMK
But I actually DO think not enough papers are retracted.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @K_Sheldrick
Well yes, I think the only way you could think that enough papers are retracted is if you don't realise how many papers are bad
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @K_Sheldrick
So, I think that people who don't think enough papers are retracted mostly think that all published work is good
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @K_Sheldrick
I completely agree with the sentiment too. I think the confusion is because either there is an extra "not" or one missing. "The only way you could think that enough papers are retracted is if you" "The only way you could NOT think that not enough papers are retracted is if you"
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Lol I see the confusion. Saturday morning brain has me tweeting poorly 
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.