Over the last year or two I've noticed that some people on this forum have a view of scientists and scientific papers which borders almost on reverence - and so I thought it important that someone should mention the 'other side of the coin', so to speak.
One of the key features of the Scientific Method is the concept of 'Reproducible Results': that anyone who performs the same experiment, or conducts the same observational study should expect to see the same, or very similar results.
Two days ago, a Nobel Prize-winning chemist retracted her own paper due to a lack of 'Reproducible Results' (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50989423), and is - quite rightly - being applauded for doing so. There was a reference in that article to the journal Nature expressing a concern over the steep rise in retracted peer-reviewed articles. From the 1990's onwards there have been a growing number each year, with 2019 seeing over 1400 retractions.
Many of these retractions result from honest mistakes, but some are due to outright fraud. When scientific prestige and promotion are allied to publication and theories such fraudulent conduct is understandable, and perhaps inevitable. There was even one case of a Chinese Professor who gave a lecture on the need for integrity within science, who was later found to have fabricated data to support his own theory.
For news of a newly-created database of retracted papers: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018...-death-penalty
I'm not suggesting that fraud or sloppy science necessarily applies to any known bee-related research - but it's always a possibility to be taken into account if that work has not been independently reproduced by others.