Профиль

Yes, they picked up our original coverage.

That is a reasonable but speculative claim in the story. We will consider how to appropriately update the database, but being an honest broker requires sticking to supported claims.

The context referred to here by new information coming to light. Again, the "bot" claim was not public when we became aware of these retractions years ago. We have long campaigned for publishers to be more transparent in retraction notices, which is a major issue here. bsky.app/profile/retr...

Good to hear. Our expert and hard-working team has taken the position that whether a paper is retracted has a clear factual basis, so all retracted papers are listed with as much context as possible. Excluding particular retractions risks our honest broker intent.

We often update the database when new information comes to light years after entries, and will do that here as part of our regular process. That is a list of retractions by Nobelists, doesn't use the word shameful, with links to coverage and entries that include a doing the right thing category.

That is a list of Nobel Prize winners with retracted papers, not a list of "shame."

Neither AI nor any other algorithm is involved in the Database, which is 100% maintained and curated by humans. bsky.app/profile/retr...

That srticle was published last week, while the entries have been in the Database for years but only noticed by Yves Gingras earlier this year, as the story notes. We are limited when making any particular one of 5,000-plus annual entries to what information is publicly available at the time.

Thanks for the tag. Do you have a specific suggestion about the entries? We include what information we have, which in this case was that they were retracted for copyright violations, as per the notices. retractiondatabase.org/RetractionSe...

Retraction Watch DatabaseISSN 2692-465Xretractiondatabase.org