I don't know how much I agree with the premise of this article. People aren't resistant to retracting faulty research because the people who point out faulty re

I don't know how much I agree with the premise of this article. People aren't resistant to retracting faulty research because the people who point out faulty research sound like cranks, they do it because their incentives are to maintain the work they've done. If you look at someone like Brian Wansink[1], what started off as unearthing methodological errors seems to have found actual fraud, although I'm sure Wansink wouldn't view it that way. And this massive peer review process not only didn't discover it, it's been an impediment to correcting it. At stake are millions of dollars in federal funding and more than a few careers. Do you think anyone involved is primarily concerned with tone? And I'm not sure how effective anyone can be at combating it by working within a crooked and broken system, where extracting rents from academic institutions for publishing their own work is the main incentive for publishers, and academics are incentivized to go along because their careers depend on numbers of publications and citations. You may have a high success rate at combating individual errors, but you aren't making any headway on the bigger issues like publication bias and the overall trend away from long, important work and towards shorted studies designed to provide an eye-catching conclusion so that you can get published and cited. It's like bailing out a boat with a drinking cup. You're still sinking. 1) https://slate.com/technology/2018/02/how-brian-wansink-forgot-the-difference-between-science-and-marketing.html https://slate.com/technology/2018/02/how-brian-wansink-forgo...