Pamela Ronald, researcher at the University of California, Davis (and blogger at Scientific American) has outlined why a paper she contributed to in Science was retracted. No, it was not fraud or misconduct, this was retracted by the authors because they could not consistently reproduce the results of a key factor in their conclusion.
Okay, retractions happen, what is interesting is that we get a thought process; redoing all of the experiments would take almost as long as the original study but if their conclusion was flawed, they didn't want it out there being cited. But a hasty retraction isn't productive either. She has a post going up on the details at her Scientific American blog tomorrow but you can read more at Pamela Ronald does the right thing again, retracting a Science paper on Retraction Watch.
H/T Bora Zivkovic
Subscribe to the newsletter
[x]
Stay in touch with the scientific world!
Know Science And Want To Write?
Apply for a column: writing@science20.com
Donate or Buy SWAG
Please donate so science experts can write
for the public.
At Science 2.0, scientists are the journalists,
with no political bias or editorial control. We
can't do it alone so please make a difference.
We are a nonprofit science journalism
group operating under Section 501(c)(3)
of the Internal Revenue Code that's
educated over 300 million people.
You can help with a tax-deductible
donation today and 100 percent of your
gift will go toward our programs,
no salaries or offices.
- Biden's Nursing Home Mandate Will Do To Rural Senior Care What Obamacare Did To Hospitals
- EPA Debunks Environmentalist Claims That Acephate Causes Autism
- Vaccines Have Saved 101 Million Infants In 50 Years, Europe Needs To Let That Happen In Agriculture Too
- Despite Little Demand, 2024 Electric Car Sales Will Be Up To 17 Million, Says Advocacy Group
- Oil Kept Congo From Starving - Western Academics Don't Seem To Like That
- Voyager Has Come Back Online After 5 Months
- California Is Lying About Recycling Plastic: Happy Earth Day
Interesting insights from outside Science 2.0
© 2024 Science 2.0
Comments