On 12/08/2011 00:30, David Schuller wrote:
link: http://iai.asm.org/cgi/reprint/IAI.05661-11v1
Ferric C. Fang& Arturo Casadevall
Retracted Science and the Retraction Index
Infec. Immun. doi:10.1128/IAI.05661-11
Abstract: Articles may be retracted when their findings are no longer
considered trustworthy due to scientific misconduct or error, they
plagiarize previously published work, or are found to violate ethical
guidelines. Using a novel measure that we call the “retraction index,”
we found that the frequency of retraction varies among journals and
shows a strong correlation with the journal impact factor.
...
(with special attention to Figure 1, Retraction Index vs. Impact Factor)
It's funny, isn't it, how these discussions keep resurfacing;
invariably they're the longest threads, the last one was in December
2009; happily, Kevin Cowtan closed it out eloquently
(http://www.proteincrystallography.org/ccp4bb/message13103.html),
memorable quotes include:
"More specifically, we are seeing "peer review" at work"
"The problem is [...] our failure to maintain an appropriate level
of doubt concerning anything we read in a paper [...]".
I can't agree more. Peer review worked, even peer /pressure/ worked,
albeit a bit slower than the BB kangaroo court.
What stands out in these threads on scientific fraud (current one no
exception) is the sanctimonious undertone, a fluffing of feathers as it
were. Is it because we, gnawed by a sense of our own regular but
inescapable transgressions of less-than-spectacular scientific rigour --
those blind eyes turned in supervision and collaboration, those sweeping
hairy conclusions in manuscripts, that papering over of nagging doubts
of our lurking irrelevance using grand claims in grant applications and
reports, the maybe just a bit too cursory self-scrutiny of our pet
projects and paradigms; in short, our scientific white lies -- is it
this that makes us bay with such relief when the occasional *real*
bastard is paraded by?
Mind you, I did think that role in society was already exhaustively
covered by the tabloids; but okay, we're humans too.
Worth asking though is, what shape do our individual responses to even
constructive criticism, after all the backbone of peer-review, give to
the current scientific landscape; are we co-responsible for the need
for those many white lies?
But I'm probably being too cynical and it is after all merely good,
old-fashined /Schadenfreude/ -- the purest joy, as the German saying
goes: /Schadenfreude ist die reinste Freude/).
phx.
P.S. Ah, I love the smell of philosophical wax in the morning!
