tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9091218950079982154.post1227104911985889493..comments2024-03-07T15:19:55.343+01:00Comments on Copy, Shake, and Paste: Stapel retracts another two papersDebora Weber-Wulffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01602911135725939409noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9091218950079982154.post-10201189954399847602012-05-03T18:23:40.066+02:002012-05-03T18:23:40.066+02:00Just a quick comment: Of course, if dubious papers...Just a quick comment: Of course, if dubious papers which have made it past the supposedly "rigorous" peer review process of well-known journals have to be retracted, this should be publicized. On the other hand, if authors discover genuine mistakes in their experimental setup, code, or previously unknown sources of systematic error, they should be encouraged to retract their erroneous papers, so that other researchers are not mislead in the future - in my opinion, this does not happen often enough. Hence, unlike plagiarism, there are valid reasons for retractions. It's a fine line.Tillnoreply@blogger.com