4 ms·
There is a funny kind of bias here: Fields and subfields who actually retract papers are more likely to win the this negative award of "most heavily citing retr
by blackbrokkoli 2y ago
There is a funny kind of bias here: Fields and subfields who actually retract papers are more likely to win the this negative award of "most heavily citing retracted studies" — contrast that psychology, where things are almost never retracted, and there is no way of knowing whether a paper has been replicated consistently except reading hundreds of other papers: no chance of such criticism being leveled.
- BrandoElFollito 2y agoThis is a very good point, survivor biais in all its glory. I would be interested to see which fields have the most retracted papers, broken by impact index. I am not sure the conclusion to draw from there (most honest vs least competent vs most reproductible vs most scrutinized etc.)
- overstay8930 2y agosoft “science” vs hard science
- blackbrokkoli 2y agoFan favorite of the HN crowd I know, but hardly the correct line to draw. Here is one of the hundreds of papers analyzing mislabeling in genetics (notice how affected papers are usually not withdrawn): https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00204-015-1632-4 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00204-015-1632-4 (Unless you consider biology soft)