Retracted Papers and Peer Review

The secular peer-review process is enounced as if it were a guarantee of truth and objectivity, but these folks do not understand what is involved. Academia requires publishing, and many researchers want to promote the next big thing in science. There are serious problems in this elite club.

Credit: FreeDigitalImages / Renjith Krishnan

The secular science industry is beset with problems. There is a reproducibility crisis, which means that papers are submitted, reviewed, and published — but the results have not been reproduced. How valid is that paper? Researchers cite papers that are dubious, and some are even fraudulent. It was discovered that retracted papers are also used to support research.

Mockers reject peer-reviewed papers by biblical creationists, but they have very different motivations by secularists and are apparently not dealing with such issues. Don't be disunderstanding me. I'm not gilding the lily and pretending there are no sidewinders pretending to be creationists, or that they are without fault. But with desires to uphold the Word of God and seek the truth, creationists as a whole are disinclined to cheat. Savvy?

There’s another case of zombie science in peer-reviewed publishing: retracted papers that don’t stay dead.

Proponents of scientism often argue that science, unlike other realms of scholarship, is self-correcting. Peer review prevents bad papers from getting published (so goes the argument), but even after publication, other experts or the authors themselves can find flaws and notify the journal, which can issue a retraction. All well and good. . . . Why, then, are some papers still being cited over a decade after they were retracted?

To read this interesting and useful article, ride on over to "Retracted Papers Never Die".