[Arkcon]

Well, 'tis the season for top ten lists, but this is one I hadn't heard of before ... Top Redacted Journal Articles of 2010.  http://www.livescience.com/17635-science-journal-retractions-2011.html And #4 isn't even really redacted yet.

[Mitch]

Thanks for the link, pretty cool list.

[Borek]

They didn't even count to 10, just to 5

[Arkcon]

I know, I was so flustered by the content, I rushed to post it here for our discussion.  I found it first on MSN, so I had to dig through the LiveScience webpage to find the original article for posting here.  This was already on FARK, but people there are pretty mellow -- that's just the way science works, they say.

That one story #4 -- I don't quite get it.  It has been retracted from one journal, but not from PNAS.  It is simply unavailable online, say s the Live Science article.  What, I wonder, does it actually say?  Did it actually say that butterflies evolved from a cross species fertilization of flies and worms to explain why modern butterflies have a worm-like larval stage?  Because that's just wrong on so many levels, that could only be published on April 1st.

Often, to bash science, news reporters will dumb down the text so far, they corrupt the message, so it only looks stupid.  I really don't know if that's the case here.

[billnotgatez]

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)

Is this peer reviewed or editor reviewed

[edwards.kevin41]

Hey!!! Thanks for the list. That was really cool.