crossposting from Scienceblogs.
I've been having a little Twitt discussion with Retraction Watch honcho @ivanoransky over a recent post in which they discuss whether a failure to replicate a result justifies a retraction.
Now, Ivan Oransky seemed to take great umbrage to my suggestion in a comment that there was dereliction in their duty to science to intentionally conflate a failure to replicate with intentional fraud. Per usual, we boiled it down to a fundamental disagreement over connotation. What it means to the average person to see that a paper is retracted.
I rely upon my usual solution, DearReader. Select all choices that apply when you see a retraction or that you think should induce a retraction.
Direct link to the poll in case you can't see it.
My position can be found after the jump....
I think we need to be exceptionally clear in the business of science that a failure to replicate is not, in fact, evidence of fraud.
I don't give a fig what any journals might wish to enact as a policy to overcompensate for their failures of the past.
In my view, a correction suffices (and yes, we need to concentrate on making sure that any search engine that lands upon official mention, especially PubMed and the official journal site, makes it clear that the paper was in fact corrected) in most cases where there is not fraud.
Retraction, to me, implies that there is reasonable evidence of some sort of shenanigans.