Can retracting bad papers actually hinder science reform?
|August 18, 2018||Posted by News under Intelligent Design, Peer review|
That seems counterintuitive, but consider: Retractions can be a way of sweeping misconduct under the rug, when a thorough investigation is really what is needed.
The retracted paper is co-authored by researchers who used to collaborate with Yoshihiro Sato, a now-deceased bone researcher who has accrued dozens of retractions.
But investigation tends to stop with the retraction, which mean that the problems may continue.
In a recently published paper, Grey and his team reported that after they contacted a dozen journals that had published nearly two dozen clinical trials co-authored by Sato that had been flagged as potentially problematic, they didn’t receive a single useful response. (You can read more about our thoughts on how journals shy away from discussing misconduct here.)staff, “Dear editor: Your retraction notice stinks” at RetractionWatch
Serious reform is not a Saturday afternoon project: It is a full-time job for people who are both smart and committed. Too often, what sounds like attempts at reform are simply Correct face saving and virtue signalling. Nothing happens and no one cares until the next crisis wallops through.
See also: Retraction world: If this is science, yes we do hate it
Fun (no, not really) science news from Retraction Watch on fake news and citation rings
Retraction Watch’s Ivan Oransky asks: Is the peer review system sustainable?