3 ms·
I recall finding this on HN some while back, prior to retraction, for a good laugh: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32668870/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32
by the_only_law 6y ago
I recall finding this on HN some while back, prior to retraction, for a good laugh: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32668870/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32668870/.
Supposedly a few more far out papers have been published by the authors as well. Kinda makes you wonder what the motive is here. Seems a bit high effort to be simple trolling.
- patcon 6y agoomg, someone could not have designed a better conspiracy machine than this publication's standard retraction process. Missing abstract. no way to find rejected article. People will go absolutely loopy with that
- the_only_law 6y agoYeah it’s a shame they don’t link the original text. You can find copies pretty easily with a google search of the title, albeit with a big, opaque redacted watermark on the pages. I’m sure if you really want it you could find it with a bit more effort though.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- wtf_srsly 6y agoIt's actually quite easy to find. Just click on the DOI link for the full paper (https://doi.org/10.23812/20-269-e-4 https://doi.org/10.23812/20-269-e-4).
- patcon 6y agoThanks. But wow, so it's that easy to be accidentally complicit...