@roboneko @Elliptica @Owl @Tripp @diresock
The issue isn't that papers are being retracted. The issue is that we're discovering that some of these papers are not new. We're discovering that research that became the foundation of a lot more research in their fields, for many many years, were filled with fraud. We're not talking about a paper that got published a few months back and then retracted. We're talking about things like the Alzheimer case, where amyloid plaque was deemed as the cause of the disease, and only recently it has been proven wrong, well after we've wasted decades of research man-power on trying to remove amyloid plaque buildup in Alzheimer patients, with little if any improvement on their condition.

Sure, in some sense it's just business as usual, and you always relied on the peer-review process to weed out either fake or faulty research, and papers getting rejected and retracted now is no different. Or at least shouldn't be. But we're now seeing evidence that peer-review has failed HARD in the not recent past, and it's failing a lot now, with publications lowering their standards for anyone who's willing to pay money, and researchers not really being that interested in doing replication or "debunking" work, because you're not gonna get any fame from that. You can't look at the Grievance studies fiasco and not notice how nobody gave a shit at trying to falsify the dribble. And don't give me the "Peter Boghossian and co. only got accepted by low importance publications", 1) their papers should not have been accepted ANYWHERE, 2) their peers should have tore apart those false studies IMMEDIATELY. Neither happened. Their papers did get published, and I think I've even heard their dribble was praised.

And what did we see from the scientific community in general as a response? Deflections, red herrings, refusal to take responsibility, and blaming the people who exposed the corruption.