Yes that blue line is retractions in scientific journals. Dr Roger Pielke Jr. notes on his blog that:
The Wall Street Journal reports that retractions of scientific papers have surged in recent years, with the top 3 journals issuing retractions being PNAS, Science and Nature. The graph above shows the increase in the rate of retracted papers.
Pharmalot provides a summary:
[T]here were just 22 retraction notices that appeared in journals 10 years ago, but 139 were published in 2006 and by last year, the number reached 339. Through July of this year, there were a total 210 retractions, according to Thomson Reuters Web of Science, which maintains an index of 11,600 peer-reviewed journals.
Meanwhile, retractions related to fraud rose more than sevenfold between 2004 and 2009, exceeding a twofold rise traced to mistakes, according to an analysis published in the Journal of Medical Ethics. After studying 742 papers that were withdrawn from 2000 to 2010, the analysis found that 73.5 percent were retracted simply for error, but 26.6 percent were retracted for fraud. Ominously, 31.8 percent of retracted papers were not noted as retracted (read the abstract).
It should also be noted that there are more journals now than in 1977 and we have rapid publishing tools instead of a drafting table and a typewriter.
Read the rest here http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/08/surging-retractions-in-scientific.html
I wonder if the Monnett polar bear paper will become a new data point on the graph above? It certainly started out as one.
Bystander-No, by definition the increase in the number of papers cannot be the explanation for why the portion of papers published being retracted has increased. It is not merely an increase in the number of retractions, but in the fraction of studies being retracted. Learn to read graphs more carefully.
Motl has a very interesting theory on Monnett’s & his dead bears.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/08/monnett-may-have-sent-1m-to-derocher.html
“One of the hypotheses they’re investigating is that Charles Monnett has directed $1 million to Andrew Derocher as a payment for a positive review of Monnett’s paper that Derocher wrote.”
Of the paper’s referees, one was Monnett’s wife!
With the finiancial situation I would guess that the numbers of papers will drop. The percentage that are politically motivated will stay high as they still get some funding. Again, I would guess the number of retractions will stay high, along with the number of pointless papers, until the Billions from poorly overseen Gubmint spending funds disappear.
So what was the rise in publications, then? Anything to back up your claim?
And which claims, specifically, are frequently made, bogus and uncorrected?
Just asking…
“Is it becasue people have got better at spotting rubbish or becasue more rubbish is written?”
Certainly the latter weighs in heavily – in climate science alone we see garbage daily (count 4 dead polar bears in the sea in a flyover, take the area of the visible strip, divide it into the area of the arctic ocean not under ice and multiply it by 4 to find out how many bears drowned). I suspect a lot of the garbage didn’t get weeded out with the detractions despite the trend. And don’t forget two things. 1) Climate science has benefited from CAGW-faithful publishers so its unlikely that they have culled many offerings. 2) The detractions for the body of literature on this relatively new science haven’t occurred yet. The blue line is going to be all by itself above the bar chart in the next 20 years as models, white lab coats and horn-rimmed glasses get jettisoned.
This is not the equilibrium rate of retraction. Positive feedback promises many retractions in the pipeline. And it’s the 30 year trend matters – short term variation is noise. Recent flattening can be attributed to to China – just wait until Chinese peer review gets to western standards. Scientists have looked at all explanatory variables and only anthropogenic retractions can explain the trend. Anything else is voodoo science.
Next month headline today: M. Mann, of hokey schtick fame, is suing for copyright infringement over statistical hockey stick visualization.
William Briggs had a blog posting along these lines:
“Are Scientific Papers Becoming Worse?”
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=4206
wherein he links to RetractionWatch
https://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/
I couldn’t find any climate science papers listed at all……………..
I don’t believe that any scientist familiar with the academic situation these days would NOT conclude that corruption of science is a serious problem these days. A problem that has gotten gradually worse over the last decades.
The ever growing numbers of papers retracted for cause is simply an symptom of the larger issue of the loss of scientific and personal integrity.
This is not rocket science [ grin ]
Dave Springer says:
August 12, 2011 at 11:25 am
Isn’t that just precious.
Note the upward blip during the 1998 El Nino stands out like a sore thumb. Coincidence?
==================================================================
LMAO!!!! Global warming causes fraudulent papers to be published!!!
This should be shown as an anomoly.
tom t says:
August 12, 2011 at 12:29 pm
I would have thought that better technology would lead to more accurate results.
—-
It does, that’s 35/100K mistakes that are being caught, that previously wouldn’t have been caught.
Your fake science coming home to roost.
I think we have found the consensus.
Looks to me like the number of retractions is small enough to be considered uninteresting.
Of course, given that trend lines are the “important thing” in science, this means that in a few years all scientific papers will be retracted. Perhaps before they’re published. It’s very definitely worse than we thought! In a very few decades there will be no science!!!”
Drawling a line between 2000 and 2009 we have a 5 fold increase in retractions. Draw the line and you’ll see the approaching catastrophe. Clearly there’s no choice but for the UN to take over all scientific research and publishing. There are only a very few years left in which to act to save science!
/sarc_off
Interesting.
I wonder if the number of papers retracted is anywhere close to the number of papers that should be retracted.
Bystander says:
August 12, 2011 at 12:19 pm
Oh come on guys – simply the rise in publications accounts for a fair amount of this.
Besides – when was the last correction one of y’all made on what are frequently bogus claims? When?
Just [babbling]……..
=====================================================
I’m wondering, what part of “retractions per 100k” do you not understand.
Dave Springer says:
August 12, 2011 at 11:25 am
Isn’t that just precious.
Note the upward blip during the 1998 El Nino stands out like a sore thumb. Coincidence?
=================================================================
lol, proof positive that global warming causes fraudulent publications. OMG!!! It’s worse than we thought!
Several of the influential hurricane papers in Science, Nature, and PNAS by various authors I won’t name should have been “corrected” or retracted.
Sigh,… have two in the spam filter…….just pick one….. please
@KnR
“Is it becasue people have got better at spotting rubbish or (sic) becasue more rubbish is written?
Could it be both?
I agree with TTCA, the main difference is the greater public scrutiny… this has forced people to admit to errors that previously they might not have had to (I have seen wrong papers where the authors refused to withdrawal…preferring the “rope-a-dope” method of defense.). One of the cornerstones of science has been the assumption that people will always be as honest as possible (it is as flawed as the assumption that a journalist can be truly objective), and another is that the peer review process with “set things straight”.
Speaking only for myself (as a physicist):
1) Papers should always be accompanied by algorithms, data and sample code (it need not be your “production code”) needed to reproduce your results. Compared to the hard work of preparing the manuscript itself, this is not particularly an odious task.
2) Peer reviews should become part of the corpus of the paper (as supplementary information), upon its acceptance. This includes for the journal accepting the paper as well as reviews from any journals to which this paper may previously have been rejected. The only point of the confidential review process is the protect the authors intellectual knowledge until publication of their work.
3) Authors should be willing to provide any pertinent emails (private email servers as well as university/government/corporation) if an inquiry is made about the factual accuracy of the manuscript, or the process by which data were selected for publication. (I have done so in the past, it is a completely painless process…if you are being an honest broker. Always assuming that somebody is looking over your shoulders certainly reduces the proclivity for “spinning the results” in a more desirable fashion.)
Bystander says: August 12, 2011 at 12:19 pm
[Oh come on guys – simply the rise in publications accounts for a fair amount of this.]
Thus, one confuses volume with percentage, the retractions are a rate (a percentage), if the quality of the work remains constant the rate of retraction does not change. If the quality decreases the rate of retraction increases.
A rise in publictaion would cause a rise in the Number or retractions, Not the rate (percentage) of retractions.
Thus, Bystander is once again confused by actual data.
I wonder what the coefficient of correlation is between the retraction rate and temperature as shown in HADCRUT?
Bystander says:
August 12, 2011 at 12:19 pm
“Besides – when was the last correction one of y’all made on what are frequently bogus claims? When?”
When, Bystander, was the last time you actually made a factual argument instead of just pissing at people?