Instead of deeming critiques and refutals as counter productive, it should be viewed as a constructive act that either raises an important question or points out an important flaw. Where both of these results serve as an important foundation for progression by pointing out an area in need of improvement and revision.
It is the concealment of fasehood that is counter productive, not the act of critiquing and refuting.

How is it not interesting and exciting to disprove something? Quite to the contrary, it is the disproof that provides you with the oppurtunity to conduct further researsch and assert what is in fact the case. It is the dispoof that makes room for science. What’s so interesting about a truth that only pretends to be true? What’s so interesting about falsehood that’s left uncorrected?

It is rather dangerous and unethical to conceal a falsehood. Since science is responsible for knowledge, to provide people with the way things are, scientists should take a greater responsibity for their own words. The words that many will take for granted.

Scientists have moral obligation to correct itself, to maintain the truth and integrity of the things they assert.

Do scientists really have no control over the knowledge they establish? As to what is consider as important, unimportant, right, or wrong. That is, are those profit motivated journals the only means of effective communication in the scientific community? The profit motivate journals that isn’t even controlled by the people they try to represent. I don’t see why the scientists couldn’t find other ways to announce their errors….

But they are not what I’d call a common feature.