I was asked to provide examples of the Lancet's poor track record, which I have done. I am not trying to prove it is better or worse than any other journal.

How do you know that it is a poor track record if you do not know how it is ranked against others?

Even if the Lancet had published all top 10 highly cited papers, wouldn’t 3 of them being retracted be concerning to you?

It's a list of "Top 10 most highly cited retracted papers", not "Top 10 most highly cited papers". Without more information about highly cited papers in general (e.g. what proportion are in the Lancet?), we can't tell exactly how concerning 3 being from the Lancet should be.

A top tier journal has 3 papers with >500 citations that turned out to be bullshit in the last 10 years. One of them is probably the premiere example of academic misconduct in the last 50 years, catalysing the anti-vax movement and causing untold harm. What's your definition of poor?

> I am not trying to prove it is better or worse than any other journal.

In that case it's not really clear why you decide to stop reading the Lancet, rather than any other journal? Or have you stopped reading all journals