3 ms·
The Economist really under-described this article in a way that seems deceptive. In the retraction notice[1], two examples of misrepresented quotations from Dr.
by carbocation 5y ago
The Economist really under-described this article in a way that seems deceptive. In the retraction notice[1], two examples of misrepresented quotations from Dr. Wang's article are displayed next to the primary source. Misrepresenting sources is not 'analysis'.
1 = https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/JAHA.119.014602 https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/JAHA.119.014602