3 ms·
I'm a little appalled that it went completely undiscussed why it took 4 days for the paper to be reviewed and published and 4 years for it to be retracted.
by lelandfe 2y ago
I'm a little appalled that it went completely undiscussed why it took 4 days for the paper to be reviewed and published and 4 years for it to be retracted.
- jfengel 2y agoJournals do want to publish, especially when information is exciting. The usual process of science is to trust that writers have at least some integrity. Peer reviewers aren't expected to be able to reproduce the work. They're more of a sanity check. Bad papers usually aren't retracted. More often, they're forgotten. And that usually works out well enough. Retractions are needed only when a paper has enough attention that it isn't sufficiently forgotten. So it's very common for a retraction to take a long time. It takes a while even to notice that a retraction is needed, and then you make quintuple-certain that the call for retraction is correct.