Retractions in mathematical journals
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
The number of retractions in some scientific fields like medicine, life and material related science seems rising in the past years. However, retractions in mathematics seem rare because of its rigorous nature. I wonder if there are retractions in mathematical journals.
publications journals retraction
asked Mar 2 at 20:18
Math WizardMath Wizard
22017
add a comment |
The number of retractions in some scientific fields like medicine, life and material related science seems rising in the past years. However, retractions in mathematics seem rare because of its rigorous nature. I wonder if there are retractions in mathematical journals.
publications journals retraction
asked Mar 2 at 20:18
Math WizardMath Wizard
22017
Probably, but errors in math journals are often corrected by writing a new paper with better results. Citing the old paper, of course. In medicine, not retracting bad results can result in harm. I don't know about material science - bridges falling down?
– Buffy
Mar 2 at 20:30
1
Here's a related post from Math Overflow.
– Anyon
Mar 2 at 20:33
add a comment |
The number of retractions in some scientific fields like medicine, life and material related science seems rising in the past years. However, retractions in mathematics seem rare because of its rigorous nature. I wonder if there are retractions in mathematical journals.
publications journals retraction
asked Mar 2 at 20:18
Math WizardMath Wizard
22017
The number of retractions in some scientific fields like medicine, life and material related science seems rising in the past years. However, retractions in mathematics seem rare because of its rigorous nature. I wonder if there are retractions in mathematical journals.
publications journals retraction
publications journals retraction
asked Mar 2 at 20:18
Math WizardMath Wizard
22017
asked Mar 2 at 20:18
Math WizardMath Wizard
22017
edited Mar 3 at 1:55
Math Wizard
asked Mar 2 at 20:18
Math WizardMath Wizard
22017
asked Mar 2 at 20:18
Math WizardMath Wizard
22017
asked Mar 2 at 20:18
Math WizardMath Wizard
22017
22017
Probably, but errors in math journals are often corrected by writing a new paper with better results. Citing the old paper, of course. In medicine, not retracting bad results can result in harm. I don't know about material science - bridges falling down?
– Buffy
Mar 2 at 20:30
1
Here's a related post from Math Overflow.
– Anyon
Mar 2 at 20:33
add a comment |
Probably, but errors in math journals are often corrected by writing a new paper with better results. Citing the old paper, of course. In medicine, not retracting bad results can result in harm. I don't know about material science - bridges falling down?
– Buffy
Mar 2 at 20:30
1
Here's a related post from Math Overflow.
– Anyon
Mar 2 at 20:33
Probably, but errors in math journals are often corrected by writing a new paper with better results. Citing the old paper, of course. In medicine, not retracting bad results can result in harm. I don't know about material science - bridges falling down?
– Buffy
Mar 2 at 20:30
Probably, but errors in math journals are often corrected by writing a new paper with better results. Citing the old paper, of course. In medicine, not retracting bad results can result in harm. I don't know about material science - bridges falling down?
– Buffy
Mar 2 at 20:30
1
1
Here's a related post from Math Overflow.
– Anyon
Mar 2 at 20:33
Here's a related post from Math Overflow.
– Anyon
Mar 2 at 20:33
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
The Daniel Biss case is one example where the retraction is due to legitimate mistakes (not misconduct). These retractions are rare because much of the time, incorrect proofs can still be salvaged with some work (recall Wiles and Taylor) and even papers with wrong results often contain enough correct material to be considered useful. Also, there are much fewer people that have the time to properly evaluate a paper in mathematics than in (say) psychology, where anyone with a decent understanding of statistical fallacies can find half a dozen bad studies per day.
There are also, quite likely, some cases where plagiarism has led to retractions.
Then there is the Ted Hill GMVH controversy (Quillette, Gowers's blog 1, Gowers's blog 2, Retraction Watch). NYJM has removed that paper from its archives, which can be construed as a kind of informal retraction, albeit easier to construe as a mess-up in the face of unexpected hostility from parts of the community. (The explanation given for the retraction is that the paper did not fit the journal's scope and level; note, however, that this is an extremely unusual grounds for retraction in academic publishing.)
RetractionWatch has a tag for retractions in mathematics.
answered Mar 2 at 20:30
darij grinbergdarij grinberg
3,05711223
(I also vaguely recall a journal publishing one and the same paper twice in a row... anyone?)
– darij grinberg
Mar 2 at 20:35
add a comment |
Many years ago I saw a page in an Eastern European mathematics journal retracting a past paper. It seems the paper had originally appeared in a Chinese journal, and some enterprising guy in Eastern Europe translated it into English and submitted it under his own name. The journal only found out about that fraud years later.
answered Mar 2 at 20:29
GEdgarGEdgar
11.8k72742
add a comment |
I definitely think there are field differences. Psychology and medicine are much more prone to issues with sample size, confounding variables, etc. Plus there is a huge amount of money pumped into biology/medical research (look at NIH budget versus NSF) and this likely leads to issues of worse scientists, declining returns on investment, etc. (Add in business drivers of drug research, political biases on social policies, etc. and it becomes even worse.)
There are some sketchy mat sci papers (nanoscience, devices) where there is hype science present and even deception. But in general, I bet mat sci has more solid stuff than psych and medicine. Math even more so.
A lot of times when people talk about the replication crisis, they really mean fields like psych, nutrition, cancer, education, crime, etc. I don't see general replication issues in chemistry. Yeah, there are a very small percentage of mistakes (wrong crystal structure). But in general if you repeat a chemical synthesis for a new molecule, you get the new molecule. Try that in a priming study! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priming_(psychology)#Criticism
answered Mar 2 at 20:33
guestguest
192
"Mat Sci has more solid stuff..." I can see that - concrete, granite, steel...
– Solar Mike
Mar 3 at 12:22
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "415"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f125848%2fretractions-in-mathematical-journals%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The Daniel Biss case is one example where the retraction is due to legitimate mistakes (not misconduct). These retractions are rare because much of the time, incorrect proofs can still be salvaged with some work (recall Wiles and Taylor) and even papers with wrong results often contain enough correct material to be considered useful. Also, there are much fewer people that have the time to properly evaluate a paper in mathematics than in (say) psychology, where anyone with a decent understanding of statistical fallacies can find half a dozen bad studies per day.
There are also, quite likely, some cases where plagiarism has led to retractions.
Then there is the Ted Hill GMVH controversy (Quillette, Gowers's blog 1, Gowers's blog 2, Retraction Watch). NYJM has removed that paper from its archives, which can be construed as a kind of informal retraction, albeit easier to construe as a mess-up in the face of unexpected hostility from parts of the community. (The explanation given for the retraction is that the paper did not fit the journal's scope and level; note, however, that this is an extremely unusual grounds for retraction in academic publishing.)
RetractionWatch has a tag for retractions in mathematics.
answered Mar 2 at 20:30
darij grinbergdarij grinberg
3,05711223
(I also vaguely recall a journal publishing one and the same paper twice in a row... anyone?)
– darij grinberg
Mar 2 at 20:35
add a comment |
The Daniel Biss case is one example where the retraction is due to legitimate mistakes (not misconduct). These retractions are rare because much of the time, incorrect proofs can still be salvaged with some work (recall Wiles and Taylor) and even papers with wrong results often contain enough correct material to be considered useful. Also, there are much fewer people that have the time to properly evaluate a paper in mathematics than in (say) psychology, where anyone with a decent understanding of statistical fallacies can find half a dozen bad studies per day.
There are also, quite likely, some cases where plagiarism has led to retractions.
Then there is the Ted Hill GMVH controversy (Quillette, Gowers's blog 1, Gowers's blog 2, Retraction Watch). NYJM has removed that paper from its archives, which can be construed as a kind of informal retraction, albeit easier to construe as a mess-up in the face of unexpected hostility from parts of the community. (The explanation given for the retraction is that the paper did not fit the journal's scope and level; note, however, that this is an extremely unusual grounds for retraction in academic publishing.)
RetractionWatch has a tag for retractions in mathematics.
answered Mar 2 at 20:30
darij grinbergdarij grinberg
3,05711223
(I also vaguely recall a journal publishing one and the same paper twice in a row... anyone?)
– darij grinberg
Mar 2 at 20:35
add a comment |
The Daniel Biss case is one example where the retraction is due to legitimate mistakes (not misconduct). These retractions are rare because much of the time, incorrect proofs can still be salvaged with some work (recall Wiles and Taylor) and even papers with wrong results often contain enough correct material to be considered useful. Also, there are much fewer people that have the time to properly evaluate a paper in mathematics than in (say) psychology, where anyone with a decent understanding of statistical fallacies can find half a dozen bad studies per day.
There are also, quite likely, some cases where plagiarism has led to retractions.
Then there is the Ted Hill GMVH controversy (Quillette, Gowers's blog 1, Gowers's blog 2, Retraction Watch). NYJM has removed that paper from its archives, which can be construed as a kind of informal retraction, albeit easier to construe as a mess-up in the face of unexpected hostility from parts of the community. (The explanation given for the retraction is that the paper did not fit the journal's scope and level; note, however, that this is an extremely unusual grounds for retraction in academic publishing.)
RetractionWatch has a tag for retractions in mathematics.
answered Mar 2 at 20:30
darij grinbergdarij grinberg
3,05711223
The Daniel Biss case is one example where the retraction is due to legitimate mistakes (not misconduct). These retractions are rare because much of the time, incorrect proofs can still be salvaged with some work (recall Wiles and Taylor) and even papers with wrong results often contain enough correct material to be considered useful. Also, there are much fewer people that have the time to properly evaluate a paper in mathematics than in (say) psychology, where anyone with a decent understanding of statistical fallacies can find half a dozen bad studies per day.
There are also, quite likely, some cases where plagiarism has led to retractions.
Then there is the Ted Hill GMVH controversy (Quillette, Gowers's blog 1, Gowers's blog 2, Retraction Watch). NYJM has removed that paper from its archives, which can be construed as a kind of informal retraction, albeit easier to construe as a mess-up in the face of unexpected hostility from parts of the community. (The explanation given for the retraction is that the paper did not fit the journal's scope and level; note, however, that this is an extremely unusual grounds for retraction in academic publishing.)
RetractionWatch has a tag for retractions in mathematics.
answered Mar 2 at 20:30
darij grinbergdarij grinberg
3,05711223
edited Mar 2 at 20:39
answered Mar 2 at 20:30
darij grinbergdarij grinberg
3,05711223
answered Mar 2 at 20:30
darij grinbergdarij grinberg
3,05711223
answered Mar 2 at 20:30
darij grinbergdarij grinberg
3,05711223
3,05711223
(I also vaguely recall a journal publishing one and the same paper twice in a row... anyone?)
– darij grinberg
Mar 2 at 20:35
add a comment |
(I also vaguely recall a journal publishing one and the same paper twice in a row... anyone?)
– darij grinberg
Mar 2 at 20:35
(I also vaguely recall a journal publishing one and the same paper twice in a row... anyone?)
– darij grinberg
Mar 2 at 20:35
(I also vaguely recall a journal publishing one and the same paper twice in a row... anyone?)
– darij grinberg
Mar 2 at 20:35
add a comment |
Many years ago I saw a page in an Eastern European mathematics journal retracting a past paper. It seems the paper had originally appeared in a Chinese journal, and some enterprising guy in Eastern Europe translated it into English and submitted it under his own name. The journal only found out about that fraud years later.
answered Mar 2 at 20:29
GEdgarGEdgar
11.8k72742
add a comment |
Many years ago I saw a page in an Eastern European mathematics journal retracting a past paper. It seems the paper had originally appeared in a Chinese journal, and some enterprising guy in Eastern Europe translated it into English and submitted it under his own name. The journal only found out about that fraud years later.
answered Mar 2 at 20:29
GEdgarGEdgar
11.8k72742
add a comment |
Many years ago I saw a page in an Eastern European mathematics journal retracting a past paper. It seems the paper had originally appeared in a Chinese journal, and some enterprising guy in Eastern Europe translated it into English and submitted it under his own name. The journal only found out about that fraud years later.
answered Mar 2 at 20:29
GEdgarGEdgar
11.8k72742
Many years ago I saw a page in an Eastern European mathematics journal retracting a past paper. It seems the paper had originally appeared in a Chinese journal, and some enterprising guy in Eastern Europe translated it into English and submitted it under his own name. The journal only found out about that fraud years later.
answered Mar 2 at 20:29
GEdgarGEdgar
11.8k72742
answered Mar 2 at 20:29
GEdgarGEdgar
11.8k72742
answered Mar 2 at 20:29
GEdgarGEdgar
11.8k72742
answered Mar 2 at 20:29
GEdgarGEdgar
11.8k72742
11.8k72742
add a comment |
add a comment |
I definitely think there are field differences. Psychology and medicine are much more prone to issues with sample size, confounding variables, etc. Plus there is a huge amount of money pumped into biology/medical research (look at NIH budget versus NSF) and this likely leads to issues of worse scientists, declining returns on investment, etc. (Add in business drivers of drug research, political biases on social policies, etc. and it becomes even worse.)
There are some sketchy mat sci papers (nanoscience, devices) where there is hype science present and even deception. But in general, I bet mat sci has more solid stuff than psych and medicine. Math even more so.
A lot of times when people talk about the replication crisis, they really mean fields like psych, nutrition, cancer, education, crime, etc. I don't see general replication issues in chemistry. Yeah, there are a very small percentage of mistakes (wrong crystal structure). But in general if you repeat a chemical synthesis for a new molecule, you get the new molecule. Try that in a priming study! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priming_(psychology)#Criticism
answered Mar 2 at 20:33
guestguest
192
"Mat Sci has more solid stuff..." I can see that - concrete, granite, steel...
– Solar Mike
Mar 3 at 12:22
add a comment |
I definitely think there are field differences. Psychology and medicine are much more prone to issues with sample size, confounding variables, etc. Plus there is a huge amount of money pumped into biology/medical research (look at NIH budget versus NSF) and this likely leads to issues of worse scientists, declining returns on investment, etc. (Add in business drivers of drug research, political biases on social policies, etc. and it becomes even worse.)
There are some sketchy mat sci papers (nanoscience, devices) where there is hype science present and even deception. But in general, I bet mat sci has more solid stuff than psych and medicine. Math even more so.
A lot of times when people talk about the replication crisis, they really mean fields like psych, nutrition, cancer, education, crime, etc. I don't see general replication issues in chemistry. Yeah, there are a very small percentage of mistakes (wrong crystal structure). But in general if you repeat a chemical synthesis for a new molecule, you get the new molecule. Try that in a priming study! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priming_(psychology)#Criticism
answered Mar 2 at 20:33
guestguest
192
"Mat Sci has more solid stuff..." I can see that - concrete, granite, steel...
– Solar Mike
Mar 3 at 12:22
add a comment |
I definitely think there are field differences. Psychology and medicine are much more prone to issues with sample size, confounding variables, etc. Plus there is a huge amount of money pumped into biology/medical research (look at NIH budget versus NSF) and this likely leads to issues of worse scientists, declining returns on investment, etc. (Add in business drivers of drug research, political biases on social policies, etc. and it becomes even worse.)
There are some sketchy mat sci papers (nanoscience, devices) where there is hype science present and even deception. But in general, I bet mat sci has more solid stuff than psych and medicine. Math even more so.
A lot of times when people talk about the replication crisis, they really mean fields like psych, nutrition, cancer, education, crime, etc. I don't see general replication issues in chemistry. Yeah, there are a very small percentage of mistakes (wrong crystal structure). But in general if you repeat a chemical synthesis for a new molecule, you get the new molecule. Try that in a priming study! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priming_(psychology)#Criticism
answered Mar 2 at 20:33
guestguest
192
I definitely think there are field differences. Psychology and medicine are much more prone to issues with sample size, confounding variables, etc. Plus there is a huge amount of money pumped into biology/medical research (look at NIH budget versus NSF) and this likely leads to issues of worse scientists, declining returns on investment, etc. (Add in business drivers of drug research, political biases on social policies, etc. and it becomes even worse.)
There are some sketchy mat sci papers (nanoscience, devices) where there is hype science present and even deception. But in general, I bet mat sci has more solid stuff than psych and medicine. Math even more so.
A lot of times when people talk about the replication crisis, they really mean fields like psych, nutrition, cancer, education, crime, etc. I don't see general replication issues in chemistry. Yeah, there are a very small percentage of mistakes (wrong crystal structure). But in general if you repeat a chemical synthesis for a new molecule, you get the new molecule. Try that in a priming study! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priming_(psychology)#Criticism
answered Mar 2 at 20:33
guestguest
192
answered Mar 2 at 20:33
guestguest
192
answered Mar 2 at 20:33
guestguest
192
answered Mar 2 at 20:33
guestguest
192
192
"Mat Sci has more solid stuff..." I can see that - concrete, granite, steel...
– Solar Mike
Mar 3 at 12:22
add a comment |
"Mat Sci has more solid stuff..." I can see that - concrete, granite, steel...
– Solar Mike
Mar 3 at 12:22
"Mat Sci has more solid stuff..." I can see that - concrete, granite, steel...
– Solar Mike
Mar 3 at 12:22
"Mat Sci has more solid stuff..." I can see that - concrete, granite, steel...
– Solar Mike
Mar 3 at 12:22
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Academia Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f125848%2fretractions-in-mathematical-journals%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Probably, but errors in math journals are often corrected by writing a new paper with better results. Citing the old paper, of course. In medicine, not retracting bad results can result in harm. I don't know about material science - bridges falling down?
– Buffy
Mar 2 at 20:30
1
Here's a related post from Math Overflow.
– Anyon
Mar 2 at 20:33