Right, you'd think there's never been a disturbing scandal in the scientific community at all in the past ever based on the headline.
The datapoint about so many retractions is a red herring. I think they don't expect people to click through the link and observe the graph that shows that, while rising, the current rate of retraction's still below 8% (I think they mean 8%. These guys label their y-axis with '%' but then use fractions of 1 instead of values out of 100. Gross.)
For a purely human-driven global pursuit, I'd say 8% error rate is well within acceptable margins. Seems like it's functioning as intended? Every aspect of society has to deal with inept spam nowadays, so it isn't like the issue being discussed is scoped specifically to science, either. Charlatans gonna charlatan.
The datapoint about so many retractions is a red herring. I think they don't expect people to click through the link and observe the graph that shows that, while rising, the current rate of retraction's still below 8% (I think they mean 8%. These guys label their y-axis with '%' but then use fractions of 1 instead of values out of 100. Gross.)
For a purely human-driven global pursuit, I'd say 8% error rate is well within acceptable margins. Seems like it's functioning as intended? Every aspect of society has to deal with inept spam nowadays, so it isn't like the issue being discussed is scoped specifically to science, either. Charlatans gonna charlatan.