I can imagine a world where they hedged the outcome sufficiently to not have to retract. "methodologies based on those used here may prove beneficial based on p

I can imagine a world where they hedged the outcome sufficiently to not have to retract. "methodologies based on those used here may prove beneficial based on preliminary findings, subject to further refinement" type comment. I mean, without over-egging it you would not deploy peer review, based on the modern evidenced outcomes: the papers are demonstrably not better in volume, and have to be retracted, and peer-review has been massively destructive of career progression for academics because of Rei-ification. To me, it's analogous: the model is flawed? refine the model don't junk the principle. I think at one remove I agree with comments which go to "this is evidence that rigor is good, and self-policing is good"