You must log in or # to comment.
I wonder how retracting a man’s papers compares to rejecting him from art school?
Now, I’m aware that I’m on the science memes comm right now, and that you’re all much smarter and more enlightened and mature and shit.
But that dudes name is hitler and not one of you has said a word about it, and I find that very disappointing.
Isn’t that the joke ?
curious - as i have only worked in the data pipeline side of research and cohort generation - is it not ok for a researcher to cite their prior work if said work is post peer review?
It’s normal to cite your own work if the new paper is a continuation of that research. A references or three is normal and expected.
When somebody publishes a bullshit paper that is eventually withdrawn, every subsequent paper citing the fraudulent work can also be withdrawn as being unreliable.
A sign it’s all bullshit is when you see the majority of the citations for the paper from the same author. This usually doesn’t pass peer review anymore. In hyperspecialized fields with few researchers, they commonly get a little creative on the introduction section to include other authors.
When somebody publishes a bullshit paper that is eventually withdrawn, every subsequent paper citing the fraudulent work can also be withdrawn as being unreliable.
It depends on how foundational it is, of course. If you could swap it for a dozen other papers, nobody cares. If you’re continuing the work from a retracted paper, you’re fucked (but then, you probably would have noticed some errors pretty soon anyway).
I have a friend who basically ran a series of experiments based on a paper that was complete bullshit. And like any good biochemist, he figured he was screwing up, or the equipment was faulty, or the substrate was more cursed than usual. Lucky for him, after weeks of smashing into a brick wall of failure, he started asking other people, who also kept failing and then they figured it out.
What’s the high score for retractions?
I think that Retraction Watch needs to do an institution leaderboard, to highlight which are the most, & least, corrupt institutions, because corruption’s a cultural thing, not merely an individual-thing.
_ /\ _
Wouldn’t that end up with a big survivorship bias? The truly corrupt would have no retractions from authors or institutions and there are potential incentives for publishers to not retract.
he’s ripe for a great career with openai
I mean, he’s bad, but he’s not Hitler
