Some thoughts on scientific retractions. I think we can fairly say that there are far fewer than we'd expect if science was working well
-
-
Given that this is not perfectly comprehensive, despite the excellent work of
@RetractionWatch, let's say somewhere around 50 is about right So, given an error rate of 1 in 1,000, half the retractions we'd expectShow this thread -
If the error rate is higher (and it very well may be), this number drops sharply. If we think that 1 in 200 papers is bad enough to be retracted, then only 10% of the expected retractions are happening
Show this thread -
Bottom line: we know that there is an error rate in published research EVEN IF THIS IS LOW, retractions are much rarer than we'd expect if the system was working well
Show this thread -
Note: while it's true to say that retractions often take time, it's also true that of the 50 retractions around half were preprints. And if we only see retractions years after the pandemic has passed, isn't that an indictment on the system in and of itself?
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I wish I hadn't glanced down too soon b/c I was thinking 100 but then thought "Na.. Too optimistic w/C19." and about to hit "50" then "BAM!"
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.
