Timeline for How/Whether to correct a wrong paper published in a prestigious journal
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 3 at 17:58 | comment | added | SuaveSouris | Agh, sorry to hear things soured so | |
| Dec 21, 2023 at 8:13 | comment | added | lightxbulb | @SuaveSouris It didn't. I am now with a different supervisor that has more integrity. The wrong papers I mentioned haven't been retracted. There's a follow up paper based on a somewhat correct theory which rectifies things somewhat, but they pretend in it that the previous ones are correct, which is untrue. I will just avoid having anything to do with my master thesis supervisor in the future. When I move far away from this university I may write a review that discusses this in some part, unless I entirely switch fields. | |
| Dec 21, 2023 at 0:03 | comment | added | SuaveSouris | Very curious how this one turned out | |
| Apr 29, 2023 at 14:36 | vote | accept | lightxbulb | ||
| Oct 4, 2019 at 0:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackAcademia/status/1179909095756836864 | ||
| Oct 3, 2019 at 12:54 | answer | added | Buffy | timeline score: 2 | |
| Oct 3, 2019 at 12:03 | comment | added | lightxbulb | @Buffy The mistakes are mathematical. The field is not mathematics however. From what I gathered they tried to fit the theory to the experimental results through informal statements. However, if a formal derivation is done then one arrives at different results. Additionally, the presented results can be expanded, and it may be verified that they result in mathematical nonsense. | |
| Oct 3, 2019 at 11:56 | comment | added | Buffy | You don't say which field. In mathematics the answer might be more clear than in, say, philosophy. | |
| Oct 3, 2019 at 11:25 | review | First posts | |||
| Oct 3, 2019 at 13:33 | |||||
| Oct 3, 2019 at 11:24 | history | asked | lightxbulb | CC BY-SA 4.0 |