There have been in the range of 100,000 scientific papers published on COVID-19 this year. PubMed shows 78,000, and if we include journals not indexed by that resource I'd imagine we'd break 100k easilypic.twitter.com/lOhiLPnYOO
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
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?
What about the lag? We know we get publish fast, really fast... shouldn't we expect a lag in retracting, either by authors or editors/publishers? Which is the timing of these 44 retractions?
Well, about half of them were preprints that were retracted quite quickly. If we exclude those, it's more like 20 retractions this year so far, mostly for outright fraud
Retractions are rare, but they've been increasing over time, but this is probably because more error-ridden/fraudulent papers are being writtenhttps://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0068397 …
And/or because easier to catch them. You're not telling me you think the scientific world was magically clean and perfect before the 2000s --- just because retraction rates were lower then? Nah.
In surveys, scientists admit to fabricating, falsifying or modifying data at rates c. 1-2% (D. Fanelli PLoS ONE 4, e5738; 20090. We've known for decades that retraction rates would be far higher if they reflected true incidence of misconduct. They don't.
Reading the thread, this comes to mindhttps://twitter.com/MicrobiomDigest/status/1080211884152827904?s=20 …
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.