tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9091218950079982154.post1730893847852129729..comments2024-03-07T15:19:55.343+01:00Comments on Copy, Shake, and Paste: Retractions as referencesDebora Weber-Wulffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01602911135725939409noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9091218950079982154.post-19271479741990359082013-07-24T22:07:30.956+02:002013-07-24T22:07:30.956+02:00But just because the paper that purported to prove...But just because the paper that purported to prove something had to be retracted doesn't mean that it is thus false. It means we have to start over, it could be true, could not be true.Debora Weber-Wulffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16036864220530629908noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9091218950079982154.post-77129012999630011302013-07-24T21:38:38.570+02:002013-07-24T21:38:38.570+02:00There are legitimate reasons to cite retractions, ...There are legitimate reasons to cite retractions, here, I would assume that the authors wanted to express (a more polite version of) this: "Just in case any of our readers have not noticed it, we'd like to point out that this result that was published about GFI1 is not, in fact, likely to be true. Consequently, we do not have to talk about it in any detail here."Schlupphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16399256701731431557noreply@blogger.com