The Contemplative Mammoth

The subject of retractions has been gaining a lot of steam in the media recently, with several recent studies (outlined nicely in this New York Times article) showing that retractions are on the rise, and misconduct and falsifying data are one of the most common reasons. Yesterday on Twitter, I noted that, while the language used to describe these retractions was very inclusive (“scientists,” “science articles,”) the fields that the retractions were in were largely limited to the biomedical and life sciences. A discussion ensued, with folks like Ed Yong pointing out that lack of evidence doesn’t necessarily indicate lack of fraud in other fields. At this stage, it would be useful to know whether this is a real or a perceived difference in misconduct rates, not only because the culture of how we do science may be relevant, but also because we need to make sure that the…

View original post 660 more words

About marksolock

I am a lawyer in Chicago with interests in pop culture and current politics.
This entry was posted in Miscellaneous stuff. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s