So the results are rolling in, and it doesn't look great for published research! A lot of people who think that 1 in 200 papers is worthy of retraction 


-
Show this thread
-
But let's be more conservative and say 1 in 1,000 papers is bad enough to be retracted With ~100,000 papers published on COVID-19 this year, we'd expect about 100 retractions
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
How many COVID-19 papers do you think have been retracted in 2020 (roughly)?
3 replies 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
Now, this number is hard to come by, but if we use the database from
@RetractionWatch it looks like about 44 papers have been retracted (although some were just preprints)https://retractionwatch.com/retracted-coronavirus-covid-19-papers/ …3 replies 1 retweet 7 likesShow this thread -
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 expect1 reply 0 retweets 7 likesShow 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
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likesShow 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
5 replies 0 retweets 11 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @GidMK
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 …
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @dsquintana @GidMK
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Of course not, but I think things have become worse more recently (e.g., paper mills churning out trash)
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
I think it's fair to say that the ease of online publishing has severely exacerbated the underlying issues, because prior to the 90s you had to invest a fair bit into a journal even if it was trash
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.