4 ms·

I wonder, is research like journalism where an academic is morally obliged to issue a retraction or correction for conclusions shown, conclusively, to be false?

leoc 13y ago
More or less. However it's also like journalism in that you shouldn't necessarily hold your breath until it happens.
eliteraspberrie 13y ago
If it were published in an academic journal, the journal would publish these remarks by Dustin Trammell in the next issue. But this "paper" was published online without peer review, so it's up to Ron and Shamir to do the right thing.
- ars_technician 13y ago
  Most of the research Shamir does at this point is basically crap like this, which is why it's on a website instead of in a conference or journal.
  - judk 13y ago
    Exposing a weakness in the post-journal open access publishing model. Non peer reviewed work getting more attention thannpeer reviewed work. At least on boards like HN, which I guess never respected the academic community as much as bloggers anyway.
    - a_bonobo 13y ago
      Post journal open access publishing _includes_ peer-review; see PLOS ONE, PeerJ etc. Similar problems as OP's have been noticed with non "post-journal open access publishing model". That's generally called "science by press conference" now - the most famous case was the arsenic life paper, which was published in Science, a "traditional" journal, and then later retracted after their press conference before the publication generated a huge buzz (and two later papers contradicted their findings). This isn't a problem that's caused by open access or new publishing models.
vijayboyapati 13y ago
Looks like they posted a retraction: http://money.cnn.com/2013/11/27/technology/bitcoin-silk-road/ http://money.cnn.com/2013/11/27/technology/bitcoin-silk-road... I hope they also apologized.
- smsm42 13y ago
  So, they put forward a theory, it turned out to be wrong, they said "ok, we agree, we were wrong". I think this is how the science is supposed to work, not? Vast number of theories and ideas are put out and most of them prove to be wrong, some prove to be true. I think it is a very normal and healthy process and I wonder why so many people feel the need to attack the researchers personally just because one of their ideas turned out to be wrong.
  - vijayboyapati 13y ago
    Because their theory inculpated a person (Satoshi) with criminal activity and they were wrong. That is why an apology was appropriate. This isn't just a matter of scientific incorrectness - someone's reputation was attacked.

leoc 13y ago

More or less. However it's also like journalism in that you shouldn't necessarily hold your breath until it happens.

eliteraspberrie 13y ago

If it were published in an academic journal, the journal would publish these remarks by Dustin Trammell in the next issue. But this "paper" was published online without peer review, so it's up to Ron and Shamir to do the right thing.

ars_technician 13y ago
Most of the research Shamir does at this point is basically crap like this, which is why it's on a website instead of in a conference or journal.
- judk 13y ago
  Exposing a weakness in the post-journal open access publishing model. Non peer reviewed work getting more attention thannpeer reviewed work. At least on boards like HN, which I guess never respected the academic community as much as bloggers anyway.
  - a_bonobo 13y ago
    Post journal open access publishing _includes_ peer-review; see PLOS ONE, PeerJ etc. Similar problems as OP's have been noticed with non "post-journal open access publishing model". That's generally called "science by press conference" now - the most famous case was the arsenic life paper, which was published in Science, a "traditional" journal, and then later retracted after their press conference before the publication generated a huge buzz (and two later papers contradicted their findings). This isn't a problem that's caused by open access or new publishing models.

vijayboyapati 13y ago

Looks like they posted a retraction: http://money.cnn.com/2013/11/27/technology/bitcoin-silk-road/ http://money.cnn.com/2013/11/27/technology/bitcoin-silk-road... I hope they also apologized.

smsm42 13y ago
So, they put forward a theory, it turned out to be wrong, they said "ok, we agree, we were wrong". I think this is how the science is supposed to work, not? Vast number of theories and ideas are put out and most of them prove to be wrong, some prove to be true. I think it is a very normal and healthy process and I wonder why so many people feel the need to attack the researchers personally just because one of their ideas turned out to be wrong.
- vijayboyapati 13y ago
  Because their theory inculpated a person (Satoshi) with criminal activity and they were wrong. That is why an apology was appropriate. This isn't just a matter of scientific incorrectness - someone's reputation was attacked.