Retractions can be healthy but in this case it seems to have taken a good deal of effort from another group, which isn't the best sign about the process of the original authors or the journal.
It's true there will probably be an increase in this kind of bad article retraction before we can see a decrease, and that wouldn't necessarily indicate an increase in bad science -- similar to certain crime statistics when reporting starts to be taken seriously. But I still think the article raises quite a few ongoing concerns with the current academic system, which does have capacity pressure/incentive problems to a much greater degree than previous generations.
I do agree retractions in general should be more normalized, as there are also plenty of cases where honest non-reckless mistakes were made, and sometimes even quality work that turns out to have issues in retrospect e.g. new information invalidates a previously common assumption. But I'm not sure any of that applies to this particular paper, and regardless the original authors apparently avoided addressing any of it.
The reasons for resistance are reasonably understandable - most science withstands the scrutiny. Think of the alternative, where a barrage of complaints can get almost anything retracted and require the original authors to jump through hoops again and again. In a world where there's huge political value in criticising science generally, and dismantling particular areas specifically, is this what we really want?
If "most" means "most published papers" and "scrutiny" means "can replicate" then no, it doesn't withstand scrutiny: most published research is wrong.
https://youtu.be/42QuXLucH3Q
(2016)
(the exact percentages of non-replicatable articles may be different in different fields)
This may be true in specific domains but does not stand across the board. Otherwise, we would not see any progression in the application of new discoveries in industry. It seems to me that the evidence of the last couple of centuries indicate that in many fields we are seeing 'progress' in the application of new knowledge.
EDITED to add:
What I mean by progress, is measurable changes in society e.g. the improvement of medical science leading to measurably better survival, longevity etc outcomes, or the improvement in chemistry, materials and solid-state science effecting significant change in electronics, communications, batteries etc.
It's true there will probably be an increase in this kind of bad article retraction before we can see a decrease, and that wouldn't necessarily indicate an increase in bad science -- similar to certain crime statistics when reporting starts to be taken seriously. But I still think the article raises quite a few ongoing concerns with the current academic system, which does have capacity pressure/incentive problems to a much greater degree than previous generations.
I do agree retractions in general should be more normalized, as there are also plenty of cases where honest non-reckless mistakes were made, and sometimes even quality work that turns out to have issues in retrospect e.g. new information invalidates a previously common assumption. But I'm not sure any of that applies to this particular paper, and regardless the original authors apparently avoided addressing any of it.