We have a serious problem with errors and irredeemably flawed studies: there’s a lot of them, and they keep leading people astray. Few errors get corrected. And it’s very rare for a paper to be retracted (less than half a percent).
A rose by any other name? This discussion piece reflects on the implications and viability of creating new labels for author-initiated retractions, honest/good faith errors and minor errors. Hilda Bastian suggests the practicalities might be harder than it might appear and the benefits more uncertain.
.
- Is it feasible?
- How sure are we that it will have the intended effect?
- What could go wrong?
,
One of the ideas that’s been circulating quite a bit in the last year is to de-stigmatize retractions by rebranding. It came up again at a recent National Academy of Sciences (NAS) colloquium, [PDF] reportedly advocated by the President of NAS and former editor-in-chief of the Science journals, Marcia McNutt:
.