
Deadly Japanese earthquake study retracted over false data - digital55
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01466-2
======
lwhsiao
Reminds me of this other Nature paper which appeared to have many duplicated
figures [0], caught by public review. The paper was later retracted [1].
Academic reviewers have a lot of responsibility and reviewers are often
stretched thin. There are lots of open challenges when it comes to academic
publishing, especially at top conferences/journals whose reputations add a lot
of clout to the works they publish. At the other end of the spectrum, there
are a plethora of low-standards conferences that publish what amounts to noise
(which this MIT project amusingly calls out [2]).

One positive trend (in computer science, at least) is the increased push for
reproducibility and artifact reviews [3] which raises the bar for
publications.

[0]:
[https://twitter.com/GaetanBurgio/status/1053948520535707648](https://twitter.com/GaetanBurgio/status/1053948520535707648)

[1]:
[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-0967-z](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-0967-z)

[2]:
[https://pdos.csail.mit.edu/archive/scigen/](https://pdos.csail.mit.edu/archive/scigen/)

[3]: [https://www.acm.org/publications/policies/artifact-review-
ba...](https://www.acm.org/publications/policies/artifact-review-badging)

------
evancox100
Headline is ambiguous, but just FYI only the earthquake was deadly, not the
study. (And yes studies can be deadly if they promote false/misleading
information.)

