4 ms·
>The editor and publisher were understanding and ultimately opted not to retract the paper but to instead publish a revised version of the article, linked to fr
by dwighttk 7y ago
>The editor and publisher were understanding and ultimately opted not to retract the paper but to instead publish a revised version of the article, linked to from the original paper, with the results section updated to reflect the true (opposite) results.
I don't see what the problem is.
- kortilla 7y agoThe problem is that the old copy is still floating around and by replacing it instead of retracting it, it’s not clear which papers are referencing the bullshit one and which ones are referencing the real results. Not retracting hid the turd from bibliometric tools that could have easily notifies you of poisoned papers.