The Future of Research Communications and e-Scholarship

Search
Close this search box.

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process Group retracts microRNA paper after realizing reagent was skewing results

http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2012/07/13/group-retracts-microrna-paper-after-realizing-reagent-was-skewing-results/#comments

Archive: https://archive.force11.net/node/6372

1 thought on “Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process Group retracts microRNA paper after realizing reagent was skewing results”

  1. What should be retracted?

    Interesting discussion around this retraction.  The results were not fraudulent nor were the observations wrong, but the conclusions had to be refined based on a limitation in the reagent.  Should such a thing be retracted?  I don't think so.  If we had to retract everything that was wrong, we'd have a slim scientific literature indeed.  Should it be flagged and annotated?  Absolutely!  More reason why reagents need careful identification and linking.  See a related discussion on Retraction Watch:  http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2012/06/27/should-linus-paulings-erroneous-1953-model-of-dna-be-retracted/

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Related Articles

FORCE2024

FORCE11 annual conference: 1-3 August

Driving transformation in scholarly communications locally and globally

Membership

Join the FORCE11 community and take part in our groups, conference, summer school, post on FORCE11, and attend other events.

Membership

FORCE2023 Sponsors

The FORCE11 community thanks the following organizations for their financial support of the
FORCE2023 annual conference.