"Results.
We estimate that in 2006 the total number of articles published was approximately 1,350,000."Of this number 4.6% became immediately openly available and an additional 3.5% after an embargo period of, typically, one year.
Furthermore, usable copies of 11.3% could be found in subject-specific or institutional repositories or on the home pages of the authors."
So, if 1.3 million articles published in 2006, then it must be nearly 2 million today, meaning retractions of 180 articles gives science an error rate of .001% = 99.9% accuracy.
I still think it's far too few retractions.
The true error rate is likely ten times that, but nobody's really checking them close enough.
With that large of a volume, the peer reviews are most likely only getting a cursory glance at best. Besides how many of the research studies are for anything truly worthwhile?
Furthermore ‘publish or perish’ is a very bad paradigm for true science to operate under. In fact science was a much more highly esteemed field prior to government grants run amuck amuck amuck...