4 ms·
Keeping track of retractions is good, but I'm on the fence as to whether the community should be making it a shameful act (like committing a crime), or a positi
by JR1427 3y ago
Keeping track of retractions is good, but I'm on the fence as to whether the community should be making it a shameful act (like committing a crime), or a positive one (like apologising, and admitting mistakes).
We want scientists to have incentives to not deliberately commit fraud, but also feel that they can rectify mistakes.
Having retraction be shameful might do the former, but will harm the latter.
I don't have an answer off the top of my head, this is just my observation on this.
- leephillips 3y agoHonorable retractions, as a result of honest errors, happen all the time in science and, while unfortunate, are not a huge deal. Much different are the retractions based on research fraud. retractionwatch provides a valuable service in tracking all types of retractions, and in warning the community about unethical or predatory journals.
- JR1427 3y agoI like your term "honourable retraction". But if people and retraction watch don't differentiate between these and dishonourable ones, then it doesn't really help.
- leephillips 3y agoRetraction Watch provides information. They do an excellent job in following up on incidents and supplying the complete picture. It’s always clear from their reports whether an author was shady or simply made a mistake—and this is usually clear from the author’s behavior, as well. Of course neither they nor anyone else can be held responsible for unjustified assumptions of the mob, except the members of the mob.