He’s also a prince, I’ve heard
What’s the high score for retractions?
Had this article pop up in my news feed last week or smth like that
If you read it you will notice the absurdly named Hitler Louis has a partner named Innocent Benjamin lmfao. It reads like satire.
By leaderboard do they mean the “Bad Hitlers” leaderboard? Cus he’s not at the top sure, but on the board I can believe.
Now, I’m aware that I’m on the science memes comm right now, and that you’re all much smarter and more enlightened and mature and shit.
But that dudes name is hitler and not one of you has said a word about it, and I find that very disappointing.
Isn’t that the joke ?
Yes! Finally a comment that explained it!
I will fully admit you got a wet chortle out of me
I mean, he’s bad, but he’s not Hitler
I wonder how retracting a man’s papers compares to rejecting him from art school?
Hitler never had the making of a varcity athlete
they’re not taking any chances
I think that Retraction Watch needs to do an institution leaderboard, to highlight which are the most, & least, corrupt institutions, because corruption’s a cultural thing, not merely an individual-thing.
_ /\ _
Wouldn’t that end up with a big survivorship bias? The truly corrupt would have no retractions from authors or institutions and there are potential incentives for publishers to not retract.
Exactly.
There are plenty of retraction worthy papers still standing. I think most in academia have come to the realisation that as of the late 2010s and early 2020s the ratio of decent paper to slop has gotten so bad that most bad papers are just ignored, not retracted.
Damn you Hitler, not again!
he’s ripe for a great career with openai
Grok
Can’t sign in to xitter. Username already taken.
Put this guy on suicide watch and keep him away from his niece.
curious - as i have only worked in the data pipeline side of research and cohort generation - is it not ok for a researcher to cite their prior work if said work is post peer review?
It’s normal to cite your own work if the new paper is a continuation of that research. A references or three is normal and expected.
When somebody publishes a bullshit paper that is eventually withdrawn, every subsequent paper citing the fraudulent work can also be withdrawn as being unreliable.
A sign it’s all bullshit is when you see the majority of the citations for the paper from the same author. This usually doesn’t pass peer review anymore. In hyperspecialized fields with few researchers, they commonly get a little creative on the introduction section to include other authors.
When somebody publishes a bullshit paper that is eventually withdrawn, every subsequent paper citing the fraudulent work can also be withdrawn as being unreliable.
It depends on how foundational it is, of course. If you could swap it for a dozen other papers, nobody cares. If you’re continuing the work from a retracted paper, you’re fucked (but then, you probably would have noticed some errors pretty soon anyway).
I have a friend who basically ran a series of experiments based on a paper that was complete bullshit. And like any good biochemist, he figured he was screwing up, or the equipment was faulty, or the substrate was more cursed than usual. Lucky for him, after weeks of smashing into a brick wall of failure, he started asking other people, who also kept failing and then they figured it out.
makes sense! thanks for the reply.
