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.
Ethics journal retracts paper by high school student for AI, peer review manipulation
The Journal of Medical Ethics has retracted a paper on the use of AI in the pharmaceutical industry for containing references that don’t exist. The article’s sole author: a high school student.&nbs…
Influential study touting ChatGPT in education retracted over red flags
The retracted study on ChatGPT in education was already cited hundreds of times.
annotations: Les répercussions économiques d’une pandémie
Blog de sciences économiques et sociales de Martin Anota. Traductions, revues de presse.
Milton Friedman
Blog de sciences économiques et sociales de Martin Anota. Traductions, revues de presse.
.png)
CEO of AI company loses paper on cognitive impact of generative AI
A psychology journal has retracted a paper on how using generative AI can affect confidence in work tasks after its sole author refused to share data with the editors. The April paper, publis…
annotations: Le débat sur la science économique, encore et encore
traduction française du billet de blog "The economics debate, again and again" de Dani Rodrik
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
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.xyzA 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 🧵
Article now retracted. Retraction notice focuses on data sharing, but doesn't mention - the ethics review body is the author's own company - the tech used to to collect the data by intercepting users' LLM prompts does not exist ht @grinschglsandra.bsky.social psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2027-53135-001.html
APA PsycNet
psycnet.apa.org
Ian Hussey
Retractionwatch coverage of this article retractionwatch.com/2026/06/16/technology-mind-be… @grinschglsandra.bsky.social @malte.the100.ci @jamiecummins.bsky.social
Does 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
Interesting 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…
