Comments on: Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process Group retracts microRNA paper after realizing reagent was skewing results https://force11.org/post/tracking-retractions-as-a-window-into-the-scientific-process-group-retracts-microrna-paper-after-realizing-reagent-was-skewing-results/ The Future of Research Communications and e-Scholarship Thu, 26 May 2022 13:43:27 +0000 hourly 1 By: Maryann Martone https://force11.org/post/tracking-retractions-as-a-window-into-the-scientific-process-group-retracts-microrna-paper-after-realizing-reagent-was-skewing-results/#comment-11178 Mon, 16 Jul 2012 21:14:58 +0000 https://staging2.simonw59.sg-host.com/tracking-retractions-as-a-window-into-the-scientific-process-group-retracts-microrna-paper-after-realizing-reagent-was-skewing-results/#comment-11178 What should be retracted?

Interesting discussion around this retraction.  The results were not fraudulent nor were the observations wrong, but the conclusions had to be refined based on a limitation in the reagent.  Should such a thing be retracted?  I don't think so.  If we had to retract everything that was wrong, we'd have a slim scientific literature indeed.  Should it be flagged and annotated?  Absolutely!  More reason why reagents need careful identification and linking.  See a related discussion on Retraction Watch:  http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2012/06/27/should-linus-paulings-erroneous-1953-model-of-dna-be-retracted/

]]>