Re:Stretching the “peer reviewed” brand until it snaps
by onion2k on Wednesday January 07, 2015 @05:50AM
(#8849828)
If the cost (in terms of reputation) of printing a paper and subsequently retracting it is lower than the cost of rejecting the paper in the first place, a journal is actually better off printing a dodgy paper and then backtracking later. Ultimately these journals are money-making functions of a business enterprise so they'll usually do what they can to maximise profit rather than quality, apparently even if that hinders the science.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Stretching the “peer reviewed” brand until it snaps
by padraic7a on Wednesday January 07, 2015 @06:19AM
(#8849902)
although I think it's fair to say that not all retractions are the result of fraud. I'm not sure about the ins and outs of this case for example http://retractionwatch.com/2014/12/26/nature-cell-biology-in... but I think it looks like a straightforward revision due to more up to date information. This seems to be a good example of how science should work i.e. scientists posit theory, scientists receive new information and update or revise theory in light of this.