Uploaded June 2015 | Updated September 2026, 8 hours ago
Each week, Tom chooses an article from the New York Times science section and translates it into a rap verse. This week, he explores the steady rise in retractions of scientific papers. Can organizations like Retraction Watch and the Center for Open Science help stem the tide?
"Science, Now Under Scrutiny Itself" by Benedict Carey in The New York Times: goo.gl/kUQ2E9
Center for Open Science: centerforopenscience.org
Retraction Watch: retractionwatch.com
Original beat by @ChaseMooreMusic
Video by 3Motion Creative
Full Lyrics:
Retract, retract, retract, retract, retract, retraction.
What's up doc? No Bugs Bunny.
We muddy more studies than we care to imagine.
Retract, retract, retract, retract, retract, retraction.
Getting quite clear, in the last five years,
It's gotten so bad we gotta take action.
In the old days, when a scientist screwed up,
Dudes let 'em know on the low.
Never blew it up.
Nowadays, no more hiding.
Media writing, "Think twice before you cite him."
Retract Retract Retract Retract - Why so many?
Publish more and more articles.
Plus its harder to escape plagiarism software.
It’s why plenty of people would say it's just better detection
At larger volume. Upon inspection
A couple more factors come to mind:
Pressure to publish and grab headlines.
You could mine your data for correlations.
Original hypothesis - see you later.
So easy to data massage. Cuz “we all know data have flaws!”
Not outright lying. Whiting out outliers.
Let's douse that shit. Like an outhouse fire.
Solution? Data open access prior - to publication.
Read, doubt, inquire.
Data too good to be true?
Then I guess we got more to review.
Replication is always cool.
But open data could solve it too.
Each week, Tom chooses an article from the New York Times science section and translates it into a rap verse. This week, he explores the steady rise in retractions of scientific papers. Can organizations like Retraction Watch and the Center for Open Science help stem the tide?
"Science, Now Under Scrutiny Itself" by Benedict Carey in The New York Times: goo.gl/kUQ2E9
Center for Open Science: centerforopenscience.org
Retraction Watch: retractionwatch.com
Original beat by @ChaseMooreMusic
Video by 3Motion Creative
Full Lyrics:
Retract, retract, retract, retract, retract, retraction.
What's up doc? No Bugs Bunny.
We muddy more studies than we care to imagine.
Retract, retract, retract, retract, retract, retraction.
Getting quite clear, in the last five years,
It's gotten so bad we gotta take action.
In the old days, when a scientist screwed up,
Dudes let 'em know on the low.
Never blew it up.
Nowadays, no more hiding.
Media writing, "Think twice before you cite him."
Retract Retract Retract Retract - Why so many?
Publish more and more articles.
Plus its harder to escape plagiarism software.
It’s why plenty of people would say it's just better detection
At larger volume. Upon inspection
A couple more factors come to mind:
Pressure to publish and grab headlines.
You could mine your data for correlations.
Original hypothesis - see you later.
So easy to data massage. Cuz “we all know data have flaws!”
Not outright lying. Whiting out outliers.
Let's douse that shit. Like an outhouse fire.
Solution? Data open access prior - to publication.
Read, doubt, inquire.
Data too good to be true?
Then I guess we got more to review.
Replication is always cool.
But open data could solve it too.
