Doh! Top Science Journal Retractions of 2011


Readers!
 
For many reasons, mostly political but partly ethical, I do not use Google, Facebook, Twitter. They practice corrupt business policies, while targeting conservative websites for censoring, facts repeatedly confirmed by news stories and by my sense that Facebook has taken action to prevent my readers from recommending Behind the Black to their friends.
 
Thus, I must have your direct support to keep this webpage alive. Not only does the money pay the bills, it gives me the freedom to speak honestly about science and culture, instead of being forced to write it as others demand.

 

Please consider donating by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar below.


 

Regular readers can support Behind The Black with a contribution via paypal:

Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:


If Paypal doesn't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
 
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652

 

You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage. And if you buy the books through the ebookit links, I get a larger cut and I get it sooner.

Peer-reviewed, every one! The top science journal retractions of 2011.

Share

2 comments

  • “Each year hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific articles are retracted. Most involve no blatant malfeasance; the authors themselves often detect errors and retract the paper. Some retractions, however, as documented on the blog Retraction Watch, entail plagiarism, false authorship or cooked data.”

    Better than most news agencies – retractions, in the rare instance they occur, are usually buried in the book review or somesuch. Most retractions are errors of the ‘forgot to carry the one’ variety. And those few blatantly malfeasant papers are usually retracted after other scientists complain about them. Again, this is a stark contrast to some other media outlets. Hooray peer review!

  • Devin Egizi

    Someone essentially assist to make severely articles I’d state. That is the first time I frequented your website page and thus far? I surprised with the research you made to create this actual post amazing. Great process!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *