So this http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0044118 … says 4449 retractions. Is nothing. Would be millions if bad ideas were retracted.
-
-
Replying to @lakens @JoeHilgard
True, however as I see it the key pt isn't the overall rate of ret's but the relative difference in ret rates b/w fields
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chrisdc77 @JoeHilgard
OK, that's indeed a difference. But I was mainly responding to idea that bad idea = retration. Done nowhere.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @lakens @JoeHilgard
Indeed, I don't think anyone argues that is the case. More a matter of field-dependent differences in error tolerance.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I don't get why it shouldn't be retracted in your opinions? Or am I misreading?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @chrisdc77 and
ok looking back I now see more tweets, so you mean perhaps it should be but pr and low bar mean it won't be &
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest
I mean it should not be. We don't retract studies that turn out to be wrong. Science = progress, not an end result.
3 replies 1 retweet 10 likes -
Replying to @lakens
p hacking is not wrong? I am sure I'm missing something here, but surely you think it is?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
One thing if conclusions end up wrong. Seems like another if the *evidence* in paper is misrepresented (by e.g. p hacking)
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
I think it is reasonable to say that misrepresentation of evidence is grounds for retraction.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
it seems disturbing to me that this stays unretracted
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.