FORCE2023 registrations now open!
Danny Kingsley
7 Mar 2023
No Comments
Menu
Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process Group retracts microRNA paper after realizing reagent was skewing results
Related Articles
FORCE2023: call for proposals
Elisabeth Shook
7 Feb 2023
No Comments
Welcoming New Members of the FORCE11 Board of Directors!
FORCE11 Admin
22 Jan 2023
No Comments
Call for Nominations to the FORCE11 Board of Directors
Todd Carpenter
21 Nov 2022
No Comments
An Invitation to be Actively Involved in FORCE11
Todd Carpenter
26 Jul 2022
No Comments
New Leadership Team for FORCE11 Board
Todd Carpenter
22 Jun 2022
No Comments
FORCE2023 Conference
APRIL 18-20 (Online)
Thinking/Acting: The Global and the Local
#force2023
Membership
Join the FORCE11 community and take part in our groups, conference, summer school, post on FORCE11, and attend other events.
FORCE2023 Sponsors
The FORCE11 community thanks the following organizations for their financial support of the
FORCE2023 annual conference.
Previous
Next
1 thought on “Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process Group retracts microRNA paper after realizing reagent was skewing results”
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/