It has been mentioned many times before and has been even officially published by COPE
Science is either replicable or not. If not, it should be corrected. If faulty or fabricated, it should be retracted.
Wow. During all of #COVID__19 there have been 3 journal articles that presented data outside of my covid worldview. This JAMA article was the scariest, but has now been “corrected.” Not scary anymore. The other 2 articles were fully retracted. Hard not to be cynical. pic.twitter.com/UpQtnIEPzS
— Robert Smith, MD, MSc, FACC, FSCAI (@RFscai) August 26, 2020
If you agree with me that we as scientists should not agree with such corrections-of-manipulated-data, please help me by writing to the Editor in Chief of @JNeurophysiol https://t.co/4nyJIroK8F pic.twitter.com/GRx1BabRX9
— Elisabeth Bik (@MicrobiomDigest) June 22, 2022
This is wrong. @FrontPlantSci decided to correct – not retract – a paper with "inappropriate manipulation" in twelve (12) photos.
And also, let's replace seven (7) more photos "to avoid any additional questions or concerns".https://t.co/E4zdH3tIN1 pic.twitter.com/3KKtKbNElg— Elisabeth Bik (@MicrobiomDigest) January 14, 2020
You might correct an error,
but you cannot correct a falsification.@tandfonline https://t.co/qklUtBHpFjhttps://t.co/3yiHqSYpUh#melanoma #Cancer @ingentium_mel pic.twitter.com/iTcwEO9H4y— Morty 🇺🇦 (@mortenoxe) September 5, 2022
When scientist falsify data and get away with it by saying "these accidental duplications in the photographs of cell antibodies are due to problems with the camera", we have a problem.https://t.co/bbsOteAjGJhttps://t.co/eafGGxGt1u@ciberned @ELSneuroscience @UniBarcelona pic.twitter.com/jBfthKUoHW
— Morty 🇺🇦 (@mortenoxe) September 26, 2022