[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

Search:


View post   

>> No.15403191 [View]
File: 309 KB, 512x279, honks.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15403191

>>15399434
>oy vey the harry potter fans are out to get me

>> No.15230660 [DELETED]  [View]
File: 309 KB, 512x279, honks.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15230660

doesn't exist, all the telescopes are absurdly dedicated to looking for nonexistent dark matter.

>> No.15137974 [View]
File: 309 KB, 512x279, honks.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15137974

The lengthy retraction notice detailed a back-and-forth with the authors about methodological concerns in the article. The editors concluded those concerns meant the paper “did not meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria,” but one of the authors told us he believes a correction could have addressed them.

“The anti-vaccination infodemic on social media: A behavioral analysis” appeared in March 2021. Written by Federico Germani and Nikola Biller-Andorno of the Institute of Biomedical Ethics and History of Medicine at the University of Zurich in Switzerland, the paper has been cited 95 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science. Altmetrics shows pickup in several news stories, as well as a working paper from the World Bank.

The June email from the PLOS publication ethics team stated that “some concerns have been raised regarding your article with respect to some clarity in the reporting and methodology,” and asked the authors to submit a revision to the article with specific changes “in order to comply with our publication criteria.”

Germani, the corresponding author, sent the journal an updated version of the paper less than two weeks after receiving the request. But he didn’t hear back for months, he told us, until an October email from the publication ethics team informed him and his co-author that the editors had decided to retract the paper.

The email included a draft of the retraction notice listing methodological concerns, to which the authors responded in detail in their appeal of the decision. The journal rejected their appeal and sent them a revised retraction notice in November. After more back-and-forth about the wording of the notice, the retraction was published on Dec. 22, 2022. The notice began:

Navigation
View posts[+24][+48][+96]