A paper that claimed the quality of information doesn't factor into how viral it becomes under conditions of "information overload" has been retracted.
PubPeer users went from discussing papers to hunting down fraud—and have embroiled the site in the most important internet privacy case you've never heard of.
Five years on, Retraction Watch continues to push harder for transparency in scientific publishing.
Flowery language may actually be the best way to tell if a study is complete bullshit.
In an article published yesterday we erroneously implied that the Daily Mail's use of the term "hippy crack" was both lame and inaccurate. It has been brought to our attention that this is not the case. VICE regrets the error.