Update: We submitted the comment to the Journal of Population Economics, and today we got a desk reject with this motivation. However, we do not know their conclusion about the main results and why the paper was not retracted. Clearly, they do not hold. 1/4
Johanna Rickne
🚨 REPLICATION REPORT UPDATE: One year ago, a tweet by John Holbein alerted me, @ollefolke.bsky.social, and @jopieboy.bsky.social to a paper with a shocking result about Sweden’s law criminalizing the purchase of sex.🧵
May 15, 2025 at 5:42 PM
Andreas De Block on Twitter / X
It took Nature three years to publish this rebuttal, which clearly demonstrates the fundamental flaws in the original paper. In the meantime, the paper's conclusions influenced scientific debate and policy decisions. Such delays in correcting flawed research do real damage. https://t.co/QI3Ei3PE70— Andreas De Block (@DeblockBlock) August 13, 2026
More than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023 — a new record
The number of articles being retracted rose sharply this year. Integrity experts say that this is only the tip of the iceberg.
More than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023 — a new record
The number of articles being retracted rose sharply this year. Integrity experts say that this is only the tip of the iceberg.
Influential study touting ChatGPT in education retracted over red flags
The retracted study on ChatGPT in education was already cited hundreds of times.
Comment on “Banning the purchase of sex increases cases of rape: evidence from Sweden”
Journal of Population Economics -
BMJ Group retracts paper on COVID-19 vaccines and mortality featured in Senate hearing
BMJ Public Health has retracted a paper some — including a witness at a recent U.S. Senate subcommittee hearing — have used to link COVID-19 vaccines to deaths. The action comes more than two years…
Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science
I saw in a recent issue of the Times Literary Supplement that you have been critical of the “chambermaid” study which purported to show that people were losing weight without changing their diet or exercise. I agree that this study did not show what it claimed.
Retracted coronavirus (COVID-19) papers
via CDC We’ve been tracking retractions of papers about COVID-19 as part of our database. Here’s a running list, which will be updated as needed. (For some context on these figures, see…
The Fallacy of Endless Economic Growth
What economists around the world get wrong about the future.
Just checked, and yes, my retracted paper is in the #retractionwatch database, as it should be. However, I wish the reason didn't include that it was an investigation by the journal/publisher, it was me who sweated and wrote a new paper with a solid theorem explaining why our old paper was […]
Original post on mathstodon.xyz
mathstodon.xyzInteresting editing error in today's Pew report. They used CPS to count immigrants (weren't we just arguing about this?) and conclude the number dropped 1.4 million from January to June. They repeat this key sentence, once with and once without the caveat... pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/08/21/key-fi…
A re-analysis of Ciacci's (2024) "Banning the purchase of sex increases cases of rape: Evidence from Sweden" Journal of Population Economics reveals major issues. A year ago, reproducers Adema, Folke, and Rickne found coding errors driving the paper's key results. Let's unpack this in a 🧵
An article about data visualization was retracted 1.5 years after I pointed out errors. The notice says that "concerns were raised". I spend dozens of hours contacting authors and editors, reproducing analyses, and following up on ignored emails. But I'm not mentioned in the retraction notice.
RETRACTED: A Perception Study for Unit Charts in the Context of Large-Magnitude Data Representation
www.mdpi.comDoes this mean that Psych Science should retract the Cuddy et al. p-curve paper on power posing in which the authors declare "no conflict of interest" despite the first author making millions of dollars off of the claims made in the article? The article is, of course, deeply flawed in other ways.
Kathleen Bachynski
“The journal’s retraction was prompted by a December 8 email from Markowitz and Rosner to the journal, which identified a glaring conflict of interest. They presented evidence that the commentary was written by a consultant paid by Johnson & Johnson” @profgoldberg.bsky.social
In our new paper of how Bluesky users discuss retracted papers, we found: ✅ 90% of Bluesky posts show "good practices" (flagging issues/retraction status) ❌ Only 10% show "bad practices" This highlights Bluesky's vital role in responsible science communication! arxiv.org/abs/2605.04334
