Perspectives on Scientific Error 2027 · PSE9

Dark-Moneyed Denialists Are Running 'Fixing Science' Symposium of Doubt

The “Fixing Science” symposium, which is hosted by the National Association of Scholars and kicks off today in Oakland, California, includes credible speakers who want to improve some areas of science hurt by the use of poor statistical methods or making irreproducible claims. Unfortunately, they are outnumbered by people who have often cast doubt on mainstream climate, environmental, and health sciences. For […]

The natural selection of bad science

Abstract. Poor research design and data analysis encourage false-positive findings. Such poor methods persist despite perennial calls for improvement, sugg

Speculations on the Future of the Scientific Method

The following essay was published 20 years ago (January, 2006) on my blog The Technium. I edited the intro here, but the speculations are basically unchanged.

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

Science has been in a “replication crisis” for a decade. Have we learned anything?

Bad papers are still published. But some other things might be getting better.

Can anyone fix science?

Science has always been in crisis. This is fine.

Correction of scientific literature: Too little, too late!

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has highlighted the limitations of the current scientific publication system, in which serious post-publication concerns are often addressed too slowly to be effective. In this Perspective, we offer suggestions to improve academia’s willingness and ability to correct errors in an appropriate time frame.

Guest post: If you’re going to critique science, be scientific about it

Loren K. Mell Editor’s note: This post responds to a Feb. 13 article in The Atlantic, “The Scientific Literature Can’t Save Us Now,” written by Retraction Watch cofounders Adam Marcus and Ivan Oran…

Guest Post — When Errors Become Consensus: Science’s Self-Correction Can No Longer Keep Up - The Scholarly Kitchen

From 19th-century beef tea to paper mills and generative AI, the challenge is no longer detection alone; it is preventing bad claims from becoming embedded knowledge.

Home

ERROR is a bug bounty program for science to systematically detect and report errors in academic publications

Quotation errors in general science journals

Abstract. Due to the incremental nature of scientific discovery, scientific writing requires extensive referencing to the writings of others. The accuracy

AI agents are checking the scientific literature — and spotting decades-old errors

The technology is proving adept at finding faults in decades-old papers and reference databases.

Konrad Hinsen's blog

Thirty years after my first contact with computational (ir)reproducibility, I am happy to note that many things have improved. Reproducibility, computational and otherwise, is increasingly recognized as an important aspect of scientific quality control, and mostly considered worth striving for. However, I also note that more and more people, including reproducibility activists, have lost contact with the day-to-day reality in which reproducibility matters. Reproducibility is becoming an item on a checklist, and its precise incarnation the subject of political bickering aimed at making it easy to check off that item. So let's take a look at why computational reproducibility matters for researchers.