@natemezmer @jakeshieldsajj Seems like peer viewed isn't good enough given the skyrocketing number of retractions of peer reviewed science https://t.co/2OAdhnGf6o
Etait-il possible de se rendre compte que la base de donnée était fausse pendant la review ? Peut-être, mais ça me semble difficile... 13 jours pour une rétractation est-ce long ? NON. La durée moyenne de retractation c'est 33 mois. 12/n https://t.co/BBy
@GidMK Retractions are rare, but they've been increasing over time, but this is probably because more error-ridden/fraudulent papers are being written https://t.co/faOlX9WxVH
@CancerIntegral Sigo sin entender, disculpe. Yo creo que si se penaliza todo aquello que se desvía del rigor metodologico y solo dificulta el ya de por sí complicado avance científico. Y cada vez se penaliza más... https://t.co/6XM2czW3KM
@eduardo_leoni @agpatriota Pelos levantamentos de cienciometria e metaciência, há um aumento de casos de fraude e problemas de conduta. https://t.co/Py0E6VowRn
RT @curtrice: Cool research article showing that shorter time-to-retraction in high IF journals is not a function of increased visibility.…
Cool research article showing that shorter time-to-retraction in high IF journals is not a function of increased visibility. https://t.co/syXdNbsGs0
RT @breast_imaging: La Peer review solo debe garantizar qu los articulos cumplan con criterios científicos de rigurosidad o algo mas? https…
RT @breast_imaging: La Peer review solo debe garantizar qu los articulos cumplan con criterios científicos de rigurosidad o algo mas? https…
RT @breast_imaging: La Peer review solo debe garantizar qu los articulos cumplan con criterios científicos de rigurosidad o algo mas? https…
RT @breast_imaging: La Peer review solo debe garantizar qu los articulos cumplan con criterios científicos de rigurosidad o algo mas? https…
RT @breast_imaging: La Peer review solo debe garantizar qu los articulos cumplan con criterios científicos de rigurosidad o algo mas? https…
RT @breast_imaging: La Peer review solo debe garantizar qu los articulos cumplan con criterios científicos de rigurosidad o algo mas? https…
RT @breast_imaging: La Peer review solo debe garantizar qu los articulos cumplan con criterios científicos de rigurosidad o algo mas? https…
La Peer review solo debe garantizar qu los articulos cumplan con criterios científicos de rigurosidad o algo mas? https://t.co/o7WoPJajOd https://t.co/gm4yuVVxIO
RT @phillbjones: there is reasonable evidence that scientific misconduct is both common and under-reported. Here's the paper https://t.co/9…
RT @phillbjones: there is reasonable evidence that scientific misconduct is both common and under-reported. Here's the paper https://t.co/9…
RT @alpsp: Graf recommends reading this paper exploring why number of retractions has increased by Steen et all https://t.co/6M9XlROKGk #ap…
RT @phillbjones: there is reasonable evidence that scientific misconduct is both common and under-reported. Here's the paper https://t.co/9…
RT @phillbjones: there is reasonable evidence that scientific misconduct is both common and under-reported. Here's the paper https://t.co/9…
RT @phillbjones: there is reasonable evidence that scientific misconduct is both common and under-reported. Here's the paper https://t.co/9…
RT @phillbjones: there is reasonable evidence that scientific misconduct is both common and under-reported. Here's the paper https://t.co/9…
RT @phillbjones: there is reasonable evidence that scientific misconduct is both common and under-reported. Here's the paper https://t.co/9…
Here's the @PLOSONE article Chris Graf is talking about https://t.co/478qPcedEl #APE2016 cc @C0PE
RT @alpsp: Graf recommends reading this paper exploring why number of retractions has increased by Steen et all https://t.co/6M9XlROKGk #ap…
RT @phillbjones: there is reasonable evidence that scientific misconduct is both common and under-reported. Here's the paper https://t.co/9…
Graf recommends reading this paper exploring why number of retractions has increased by Steen et all https://t.co/6M9XlROKGk #ape2016
there is reasonable evidence that scientific misconduct is both common and under-reported. Here's the paper https://t.co/9AxIjKD1fA #ape2016
@drnickmorris 2012 study: "rate of increase in retractions...was greater than the rate of increase in publications" https://t.co/K30DB95fX0
RT @ACasadevall1: Scrutiny makes only a tiny contribution (1%) - most retractions due to misconduct http://t.co/DKMO9yaS4U https://t.co/LN…
Scrutiny makes only a tiny contribution (1%) - most retractions due to misconduct http://t.co/DKMO9yaS4U https://t.co/LNUH6eVbcm
@ringejacq retractions increased? Cf. http://t.co/rEE5EWrzLp #liber2015
"Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased?" http://t.co/OYbiEzy7hG #Retraction #Plagiarism #İntihal . http://t.co/ni1oitK0pk
"Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased?" http://t.co/OYbiEzy7hG #Retraction #Plagiarism #İntihal . http://t.co/ni1oitK0pk
@chrisamiller here's a time to retraction study, ironically with a correction :) http://t.co/XSlB1eB5QN
PLOS ONE: Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased? http://t.co/QUAVQAHC46
RT @pfanderson: Why has the number of scientific retractions increased? http://t.co/pfIgrZZiCB HT: @RichardCAdler
Why has the number of scientific retractions increased? http://t.co/CpL3Cwj16C
Interesting prep for discussion @helmholtz_en "Why has the number of scientific retractions increased?" http://t.co/EIJI3SnQhQ @PLOSONE
Interesting prep for discussion @helmholtz_en "Why has the number of scientific retractions increased?" http://t.co/EIJI3SnQhQ @PLOSONE
Laurie Goodman highlights increased retractions at #CSE2014 Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased? http://t.co/ceNMxIxeG1
Laurie Goodman highlights increased retractions at #CSE2014 Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased? http://t.co/ceNMxIxeG1
Laurie Goodman highlights increased retractions at #CSE2014 Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased? http://t.co/ceNMxIxeG1
Laurie Goodman highlights increased retractions at #CSE2014 Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased? http://t.co/ceNMxIxeG1
Laurie Goodman highlights increased retractions at #CSE2014 Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased? http://t.co/ceNMxIxeG1
#Retraction rates in sci #Journals are increasing: http://t.co/qZzAfrijdM - but is this a sign of sci #misconduct? http://t.co/0dC5uN8mWL
@SquishE59 Look at this article from @PLOSONE http://t.co/brTFEmeSXY Fig. 1 has retractions stats per yr since 1973. #mbionet #hopembio
Quicker retraction or more scrutiny? #PLOSONE: Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased? http://t.co/MMpOS36Dmk
Quicker retraction or more scrutiny? #PLOSONE: Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased? http://t.co/MMpOS36Dmk
Number of yearly retractions now exceeds the number of Jeltes born per year in The Netherlands http://t.co/lHEK27IiGF http://t.co/SevaNBwazc
@odenso Este paper da PLoS One? http://t.co/vk3yCu9xBd
Grant Sleen: #PLOSONE: "Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased?" http://t.co/rMHJPIyMmp
Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased? http://t.co/gKlgwwfE37 Retraction Watch http://t.co/Ipmc4lZFfW
Editors are retracting articles significantly faster now than in the past: http://t.co/WYyQnLytMC
Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased? http://t.co/WYyQnLytMC
Editors are retracting articles significantly faster now than in the past: http://t.co/WYyQnLytMC
Editors are retracting articles significantly faster now than in the past: http://t.co/WYyQnLytMC
Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased? http://t.co/WYyQnLytMC
Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased? http://t.co/4fNlOQHu2s
increasing rate of scientific retractions? http://t.co/r4e5MATJrn
#PLOSONE: Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased? @PLOSONE http://t.co/UPcirkKuhi
Thoughtful, data-driven consideration of why scientific publication retractions have gone up http://t.co/bua8AydM1u
Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased? http://t.co/tVgw3bkfJm via @PLOSONE
#PLOSONE: Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased? http://t.co/vwegBNqWTO
論文が公刊されてから、撤回されるまでの平均期間は32.91ヶ月だが、2002以降、撤回が早くなっている。インパクトファクターが高い雑誌は撤回するのが早いが、監査の増加は分散の1%しか説明できない。Has the Number of …http://t.co/ODkBoQy2p4
Interesting paper: "Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased?" http://t.co/yCG6LERErG Via @PLOSONE
Why is the number of scientific retractions increasing? http://t.co/htqSLPVgOQ Combo of: more retraction-worthy papers, swifter retractions.
Why is the number of scientific retractions increasing? http://t.co/htqSLPVgOQ Combo of: more retraction-worthy papers, swifter retractions.
Why is the number of scientific retractions increasing? http://t.co/htqSLPVgOQ Combo of: more retraction-worthy papers, swifter retractions.
Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased? http://t.co/4fNlOQHu2s
#Science publications get more stringent, scientific paper retraction increases. - http://t.co/RY1ET5SpRm
#PLOSONE: Why has the number of scientific retractions increased? http://t.co/CE0oHmJPlY
"Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased?" New PLOS1 study of timing, reasons for retraction: http://t.co/1hD8dwr16H
#PLOSONE: Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased? http://t.co/z4KK5NWuh1
O artigo, muito legal, tá aqui: http://t.co/WzjAaB4G7D
"Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased?" New PLOS1 study of timing, reasons for retraction: http://t.co/1hD8dwr16H
"Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased?" New PLOS1 study of timing, reasons for retraction: http://t.co/1hD8dwr16H
"Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased?" New PLOS1 study of timing, reasons for retraction: http://t.co/1hD8dwr16H
"Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased?" New PLOS1 study of timing, reasons for retraction: http://t.co/1hD8dwr16H
O artigo, muito legal, tá aqui: http://t.co/WzjAaB4G7D
#PLOSONE: Why Has the Number of Scientific #Retractions Increased? http://t.co/sOlAOz3GYc
#PLOSONE: Why Has the Number of Scientific #Retractions Increased? http://t.co/sOlAOz3GYc
I take it all back: Timing & reasons for retraction under the microscope via @PLOSONE http://t.co/qVi3BZhlm2
Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased? http://t.co/4fNlOQHu2s
Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased? http://t.co/4fNlOQHu2s
Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased? http://t.co/4fNlOQHu2s
Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased? http://t.co/4fNlOQHu2s
Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased? http://t.co/4fNlOQHu2s
Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased? http://t.co/4fNlOQHu2s
Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased? http://t.co/4fNlOQHu2s
Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased? http://t.co/4fNlOQHu2s
Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased? http://t.co/4fNlOQHu2s
Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased? http://t.co/4fNlOQHu2s
Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased? http://t.co/iSg8oaKh7d
Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased? http://t.co/4fNlOQHu2s
Very interesting from @PLOSONE: Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased? http://t.co/CP6WlQ6h8x
#PLOSONE: Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased? http://t.co/b2wXfuecoy