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of California, Davis (and blogger at Scientific American) has outlined why a paper she contributed to in Science was retracted. No, it was not fraud or misconduct, this was retracted by the authors because they could not consistently reproduce the results of a key factor in their conclusion.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
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.
- Rich People Who Grew Up Poor Are Less Likely To Be Sympathetic To The Poor Than Those Born Wealthy
- In A Unanimous Decision, SCOTUS Helps Pain Patients
- Abortion: For 59 Percent Of America Nothing Changes. What About The Rest?
- The CAPSTONE Mission Launches A New Era In The Colonization Of The Moon
- Back To The Future Of Science Fiction
- A 21st Century Bill Of Rights: A Lasting Solution For Abortion, Gun Rights, Voting Rights, LGBT Rights, Prayer Rights.
Take a look at the best of Science 2.0 pages and web applications from around the Internet!
Comments