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 -
Replying to @GidMK
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?
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @NAChristakis @GidMK
Ilya Kashnitsky Retweeted Ilya Kashnitsky
Here is one obvious candidate, which is both wrong and harmful. And note that the possible harm comes directly via paper being wrong.https://twitter.com/ikashnitsky/status/1328682472071192579?s=19 …
Ilya Kashnitsky added,
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likes -
The goal of peer-review is to make sure only solid research is being published. Sometimes it failes. Then comes post-pub peer-review. Of course, it's task is to fix the mistake, which is return the flawed paper to the rejected status, achieved via retraction. How else can it be?
3 replies 1 retweet 12 likes -
Replying to @ikashnitsky @GidMK
It seems you have little understanding of the norms of our scientific profession.
4 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
If the norms result in large quantities of openly wrong research being published, then what value do they have?
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.
If