No one is perfect. We all make mistakes and will continue to make them our entire lives. The trick is to admit when we are wrong instead of taking great lengths to cover them up behind a wall of statistics. Many times, it is up to the journal that published the work to retract the bad paper. Too often, the journal will, like the authors, come up with excuses or just plain ignore the implications. This needs to stop. Since many journals are now online, these articles are readily available to scientists and the general public. Damage caused by bad analysis, data, experiment design, etc. is happening more quickly and with greater magnitude than before. Therefore, I think the reviewing standard for publication should be more rigorous, and journals should be held accountable for how long it takes for them to retract bad papers (you can always put the paper back on!).
That being said, it is vital that we also question critiques and allegations of experiments gone wrong. If we throw everything away once something is brought into question, we risk losing the good information in the depths.
I agree that critiques should be questioned. If another scientist tries to replicate the reults of a study and fails, we should not readily believe the previous study is wrong. Both studies should be checked, and the most ideal way for this to happen is for the two parties to work together. If they communicate their differences and really listen to each other, they can help find a solution.
ReplyDelete