Talk:Science (journal)
|
|
good I must say..
Excess information
The text dealing with the MDMA article is much too long. The emphasis of the article is now almost exclusively on the failings of the Science editorial policy, something I think is not quite fair. JFW | T@lk 08:00, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 08:41, 2004 May 14 (UTC)) I agree. I've stripped it out to its own page. See talk there.
Imputation should be removed
May I ask what purpose the link to the article "Science" accused of 'grabbing headlines' (http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/health/HealthRepublish_944856.htm) is meant to serve? I highly recommend this link to be removed. If someone wishes to criticize that MDMA has been falsely accused of causing neuronal damage, he or she should write a personal webpage on the issue. But I think such a link has no place in an encyclopedia like wikipedia.
- The link has been relocated to the more appropriate article discussing the controversy retracted article on neurotoxicity of ecstasy. --Lexor|Talk 12:15, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
In addition, the phrase "The publication of one particular article in the 23 September 2002 issue of Science (volume 297, pages 2260-3) has recently been questioned following the publishing and retraction of Dr. George Ricaurte's article on the psychotropic drug ecstasy." seems out of place and completely ridiculous as well. The retraction of an article is something that happens from time to time even in the most prestigious journals. The discussion of whether the editors of Science Magazine played a doubtful role in not rejecting the article from the outset - at a time when antidrug legislation was discussed in Congress - is a matter that should be discussed by the press and by the scientific community. Please remove this entry. In my view, such a discussion has no place in an encyclopedia at all.
Peter, a researcher from the University of Vienna
- (William M. Connolley 09:05, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)) I have reverted to an earlier version. Now the para has been removed, but a link to a wiki page about the MDMA stuff is restored. As to the rest, I'm not sure I agre with out about the role of wiki.
- ps: you can't add text like "see discussion" to the article.
- There are several good reasons to include mention of the retracted article. First, it illustrates that editors and scientists make errors. The way to correct systems that produce errors is to openly discuss the problem. Second, the retraction illustrates an important part of self-correction within the process of doing science. If you look at the Wikipedia article for the New York Times you will see that it includes a section on problems that that publication has had [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times#Recent_Controversies). The fact that a retraction was the first item anyone wanted to add to the Science Wikipedia page is unfortunate. It just needs to be balanced by additional positive information. JWSchmidt 00:49, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Agreed, I have reinstated the link to the retracted article on neurotoxicity of ecstasy. --Lexor|Talk 02:54, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)