Most citations to retracted papers don’t note they’re problematic

[RogerBlack]

http://retractionwatch.com/2017/04/...ers-dont-note-theyre-problematic-authors-say/

Clearly relevant in the case of CFS - if citations of retracted papers don't quote the problems with them most of the time, what hope is there for papers that 'merely' have been disproved by later work.

Understanding the context of the citations was one of our main goals. We expected that although retracted articles were still cited these would be negative mentions. It did surprise us to discover that the vast majority of them (83%) treated retracted articles as legitimate citations despite of their faults. What’s worrying is that many of the retracted articles were due to faulty data, plagiarism and unethical behavior. Citing these articles as valid presents a danger to the progress and validity of science.

 

[Snowdrop]

Well lucky for science the good people of PR are on the job.

When we all get better after receiving real biomed treatment we'll make sure any BPS shit that's been sited gets a big black box warning.