Possibly due to volume, they are not listed in any particular order. Here’s one:
We saw another fall from grace for a paper that was a media darling upon publication. An August paper that suggested feeling blue might affect how you see blues (and yellows) was pulled a couple of months later, after Christopher Thorstenson and his colleagues realized they’d omitted a key statistical test. And once they added it, their findings fell apart. Sure, it would have been nice to get it right the first time, but we gave these scientists kudos for explaining what happened in a transparent way and acting promptly to correct the record.More.
Actually, the situation may be getting better, in a goofy sort of way. That is, handle it openly, with appropriate but reasonable penalties. Might be a step up from demanding worship of “science” and then driving miscreants to suicide.
Call it, if you like, the National Hockey League approach.
See also: Retraction Watch for regular updates.
Is peer review a “sacred cow”? Ready “to be slaughtered”?
Follow UD News at Twitter!