Something I think about a lot is that studies don't get retracted because they're bad, they get retracted because they are famous
-
-
For someone to notice a bad paper, it has to be spread around quite a bit. In the news. Causing a social media storm Most bad research isn't popular like that. It never gets read by more than a handful of people
Show this thread -
Moreover, if the study is not getting news, NO ONE CARES Journals aren't quick to act when the study is literally impacting policy in a way that could kill thousands - imagine how slow they move when it's a nothing of a study that's been read twice in 10 years
Show this thread -
And that's why I say only famous research gets retracted. There are exceptions to the rule, of course, but generally it holds surprisingly well
Show this thread -
Anyway, when people get mad about how the papers that are retracted tend to be the big flashy studies I just think that they are ignorant about how the whole error-checking in science thing works
Show this thread -
Also, I cannot stress enough how foolish it makes you look if you say "why are you only going after THESE studies and not all the bad ones?" Error detection in science is a job that pays in sleepless nights and ennui. No one pays us to do any of this
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This is so true! And then noone has time for it to the extent that often times people just chuckle in the inner professional circle, and the bad study flies on. I wish there was a way to change the system so that the journals are incentivised to starr checking and correcting
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.