Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Retraction Watch

Springer Nature retracts 44 “utter nonsense” papers

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. Read More ›

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. Read More ›

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. Read More ›

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.” Read More ›