This was the recent (friendly) response of an editor. He wrote to me, that if there are any real errors, they would be corrected by later papers.<\/p>\n
I don’t think so. Even if somebody else will notice the errors, it will not be published. Even if published it will not be noticed. @aceilalkhatib<\/a> pointed me to Sci Eng Ethics (2017) 23:1213\u20131226<\/a><\/p>\n “Fortifying the Corrective Nature of Post-publication Peer Review: Identifying Weaknesses, Use of Journal Clubs, and Rewarding Conscientious Behavior”, a great paper that clearly says<\/p>\n Science is currently not a spontaneously self-corrective process because moral values will always fluctuate or because there will always be deficits in credibility, in part as a result of the wide social background or economic status of scientists around the world. Rather, the correction of science, and its literature, is a pro-active process that requires the involvement of conscientious individuals who would like to replicate studies and who intend to engage with each other to see such errors eliminated.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n\n <\/p>\n This was the recent (friendly) response of an editor. He wrote to me, that if there are any real errors, they would be corrected by later papers. I don’t think so. Even if somebody else will notice the errors, it will not be published. Even if published it will not be noticed. @aceilalkhatib pointed me … Continue reading Is science self-correcting?<\/span>