Post #2370328
2026-05-10 08:05 UTC
@factsentinel@mstdn.social @gregeganSF@mathstodon.xyz It mirrors the massive issue of poor replication of results. It’s true in all the sciences, I think medicine has it the worst but it is true mostly in social and soft science areas. Papers get retracted sometimes, but the papers that cited the retracted papers don’t get the scrutiny needed. I think authors rarely know if a previous reported result important to their own research has been retracted. This is why skepticism is good. Never believe one study. You need lots, and results that replicate.
Replies (1)
-
@tpfto@mathstodon.xyz 2026-05-10 08:27
@meltedcheese@c.im @factsentinel@mstdn.social @gregeganSF@mathstodon.xyz and well, who has time to chase papers two levels deep (i.e., a paper in the bibliography of a paper cited by the paper you're currently looking at) or more these days? ;)