The most likely reason one can think of for the persistence of computer-generated gibberish in the science database is that many other papers sound like that — but are in fact authentic human creations — so no one really wants to go there.
Tag: retractions
At Psychology Today: A critic speaks out on retractions as a form of censorship
Remember this shameful episode when faced with bureaucrats huffing “Trust the science!” It appears that the science doesn’t trust the science. And if not, why should anyone else?
Yes, we are already in Top Ten season again! So, for now, Top Ten Retractions
Okay. Some say the signs were there all along. One scientist asks, “Who will believe us again? A better question is, maybe, why?
That “smallest dino” paper has been retracted
Apparently another team found a similar fossil which it thinks is a lizard.
The big COVID-19 retraction: Top people don’t notice the smell?
For the record, Uncommon Descent has no official opinion on this mess except to say, yes, a fumigator is badly needed at The Lancet.
Discredited paper claiming that religious children are less generous is still cited in media
We love it. “Correction mechanisms in science can sometimes work slowly… ” Why does that remind us of “Nature has retracted a major oceans warning paper, after ten months of mass freakouts? The suspicion raised—and it is not unreasonable—is that the harm that wrong information does is useful to some parties. It’s almost like we sense the retraction coming conveniently after the damage is done.
Most chemistry papers retracted for serious, not trivial problems
Trust science? No. Trust but verify.