Wakey - wakey...
I haven't looked at this at all, but I have definitely, without a doubt, seen peer-reviewed actual genuine research be "retracted" - which is supposed to be a transparent process, so that you can understand the science that runs through it and where the errors supposedly took place - but, very recently, with less evide…
I haven't looked at this at all, but I have definitely, without a doubt, seen peer-reviewed actual genuine research be "retracted" - which is supposed to be a transparent process, so that you can understand the science that runs through it and where the errors supposedly took place - but, very recently, with less evidence than any thing that remains standing as valid.
So maybe it was all fraud "very recently" or maybe thats just super convenient, in light of obvious connections w what is going on now? I don't know and won't be looking at that specifically myself.
What I have observed is retraction as a tool of censorship. And if you consider that for a moment it is far more powerful than refusal to publish such work / findings in the first place - as it especially forces colleagues to choose "to trust" or to be excommunicated themselves, to be associated w someone targeted for scandal or to hold in ones mind that ones own work is far superior for the alternative is to consider that ones work/career could equally be targeted.
When the "peers" are controlled with such means, the scientific answers can be obscured indefinately.
Wakey - wakey...
I haven't looked at this at all, but I have definitely, without a doubt, seen peer-reviewed actual genuine research be "retracted" - which is supposed to be a transparent process, so that you can understand the science that runs through it and where the errors supposedly took place - but, very recently, with less evidence than any thing that remains standing as valid.
So maybe it was all fraud "very recently" or maybe thats just super convenient, in light of obvious connections w what is going on now? I don't know and won't be looking at that specifically myself.
What I have observed is retraction as a tool of censorship. And if you consider that for a moment it is far more powerful than refusal to publish such work / findings in the first place - as it especially forces colleagues to choose "to trust" or to be excommunicated themselves, to be associated w someone targeted for scandal or to hold in ones mind that ones own work is far superior for the alternative is to consider that ones work/career could equally be targeted.
When the "peers" are controlled with such means, the scientific answers can be obscured indefinately.