As we’ve noted earlier, it’s getting to the point where “Trust the science!” is sounding more ridiculous all the time. It’s like saying “Trust the mountains” or “Trust milk.” It’s not a rational response to a lot of what we face just now.
Tag: Retraction Watch
Why is Retraction Watch not what we hoped it would be?
Rob Sheldon: There was nothing either unethical or inaccurate in the paper. The conclusions were wrong. This is true of over 50% of papers in the literature. Further papers show why the conclusions were wrong. No one retracts a paper because the data was interpreted improperly. For example, Newton’s conclusion that the universe was unstable. Einstein’s conclusion that a cosmological constant could stabilize it.
At Retraction Watch: “Transparently absurd” paper at Elsevier
Retraction Watch: Erm, about that concerning peer review process. Elsevier also was the publisher of the equally risible book chapter claiming that COVID-19 came to earth on a meteorite.
Retraction Watch: Lancet hydroxychloroquine editorial retracted and replaced
Beware of internet history. It is written on little electronic signals, not paper…
Anyone remember psychologist Hans Eysenck? There’s now a retraction frenzy on his papers
The rap? Among other things, “the implausibility of the results presented, many of which show effect sizes virtually unknown in medical science.”