Win / KotakuInAction2
KotakuInAction2
Communities Topics Log In Sign Up
Sign In
Hot
All Posts
Settings
All
Profile
Saved
Upvoted
Hidden
Messages

Your Communities

General
AskWin
Funny
Technology
Animals
Sports
Gaming
DIY
Health
Positive
Privacy
News
Changelogs

More Communities

frenworld
OhTwitter
MillionDollarExtreme
NoNewNormal
Ladies
Conspiracies
GreatAwakening
IP2Always
GameDev
ParallelSociety
Privacy Policy
Terms of Service
Content Policy
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES • All General AskWin Funny Technology Animals Sports Gaming DIY Health Positive Privacy
KotakuInAction2 The Official Gamergate Forum
hot new rising top

Sign In or Create an Account

58
10,000 papers retracted, anyone have a source? (media.kotakuinaction2.win)
posted 2 years ago by AlfredicEnglishRules 2 years ago by AlfredicEnglishRules +58 / -0
18 comments download share
18 comments share download save hide report block hide replies
Comments (18)
sorted by:
▲ 17 ▼
– AntonioOfVenice 17 points 2 years ago +17 / -0

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03974-8

The name is right there at the top, as is the title of the article. I'm very surprised that you can't find it. It was the first Google result for 'nature papers retracted'

permalink save report block reply
▲ 13 ▼
– AlfredicEnglishRules [S] 13 points 2 years ago +13 / -0

https://archive.ph/dSF1X

Archive. I don't know what I did wrong.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 2 ▼
– BetterNameUnfound 2 points 2 years ago +2 / -0

In before a certain guy yells at you for putting a screenshot as the post anyway.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 5 ▼
– ApparentlyImAHeretic 5 points 2 years ago +5 / -0

the post was very clearly looking for source, totally different

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 3 ▼
– BetterNameUnfound 3 points 2 years ago +3 / -0

I thought the title was joking about how "sources" will now be harder to find or believe, because so many are being retracted.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 2 ▼
– AlfredicEnglishRules [S] 2 points 2 years ago +2 / -0

That was an unintended but welcome joke.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 1 ▼
– ghostfox1_ 1 point 2 years ago +1 / -0

Reading is hard.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 8 ▼
– voidposter 8 points 2 years ago +8 / -0

>INTEGRITY EXPERTS

permalink save report block reply
▲ 4 ▼
– Assassin47 4 points 2 years ago +4 / -0

TEGRITY

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 8 ▼
– deleted 8 points 2 years ago +8 / -0
▲ 5 ▼
– misogynegro 5 points 2 years ago +5 / -0

Unfortunately I can see the usual suspects using this as an opportunity to force retraction of research that's inconvenient to the agenda on the most tenuous of grounds.

permalink save report block reply
▲ 4 ▼
– Daucus9 4 points 2 years ago +4 / -0

The world’s largest database to track retractions, collated by the media organization Retraction Watch, does not yet include all of 2023’s withdrawn papers. To analyse trends, Nature combined the roughly 45,000 retractions detailed in that data set — which in September was acquired for public distribution by Crossref, a non-profit organization that indexes publishing data — with another 5,000 retractions from Hindawi and other publishers, with the aid of the Dimensions database.

I guess that's the source.

The number of retractions issued for research articles in 2023 has passed 10,000 — smashing annual records — as publishers struggle to clean up a slew of sham papers and peer-review fraud. Among large research-producing nations, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Russia and China have the highest retraction rates over the past two decades, a Nature analysis has found.

So the usual suspects are doubling down on cheating and plagiarizing.

permalink save report block reply
▲ 8 ▼
– AgilePickle1123 8 points 2 years ago +8 / -0

Unironically Pakistani anti-gay research is pretty thorough and always based. They’ve had research related to fags and increased incidence of violence, groupthink, and response to propaganda. All of which are well documented and very intriguing

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 3 ▼
– deleted 3 points 2 years ago +3 / -0
▲ 2 ▼
– AlfredicEnglishRules [S] 2 points 2 years ago +2 / -0

I have been hearing this all around, but haven't found a source yet.

permalink save report block reply
▲ 2 ▼
– voidposter 2 points 2 years ago +2 / -0

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03974-8

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 2 ▼
– AlfredicEnglishRules [S] 2 points 2 years ago +2 / -0

Thank you.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 2 ▼
– alucard13mmfmj 2 points 2 years ago +2 / -0

a lot are probably bullshit social-science papers.

permalink save report block reply

Original 8chan Links to Gamer Gate:

.

The main GG discussion is on the videogames board: https://8chan.moe/v/

.

GamerGate archive is at https://8chan.moe/gamergatehq/

.

GamerGate Wiki:

https://ggwiki.deepfreeze.it/index.php/Main_Page

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

Rules:

.

ONE: Do not advocate for illegal violence or post other illegal activity. (Be aware of your local laws.)

.

TWO: Don't threaten, harass, or impersonate users. Also: don't be a psycho. New users will be held to a higher standard.

.

THREE: Do not post porn.

.

FOUR: NSFW/NSFL content must be flaired NSFW.

.

FIVE: No vote manipulation. Do not break communities.win's features.

.

SIX: No spam or reposts. Do not make more than 5 threads a day.

.

SEVEN: Do not post falsehoods and hoaxes that are obvious to an uncontroversial degree.

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

Moderation Logs:

.

(Two different versions, Scored has more features and is cleaner, but .win let's you see a few more details in certain instances.)

  • Scored
  • .win

Moderators

  • DomitiusOfMassilia
  • C
  • BandageBandolier
  • CarmenOfSandiego
  • The_Shadow_of_Intent
  • SocraticMethod1
  • Kienan
  • Smith1980
Message the Moderators

Terms of Service | Privacy Policy

2026.02.01 - whmbz (status)

Copyright © 2026.

Terms of Service | Privacy Policy