"Kersjes said the dataset raised obvious ethical issues; first there was no proof that the kids in the photos were or were not autistic. Also, there was no way of knowing if the kids' guardians had consented to the photos being used this way."
https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/features/120378
#healthcare #biomedical #science #research #methodology #journals #retraction #autism
The Protocol for Reporting an Error to an Author or Publisher
https://scottgraffius.com/blog/files/error-reporting.html
#Author #Books #Corrigendum #Errata #ErrorReporting #Publishers #Publishing #ReaderReport #Retraction #WritingCommunity
Ein spannender Aspekt fürs wissenschaftliche Arbeiten sind ja zurückgezogene Artikel. Wer in einer ersten Recherche etwas Interessantes gefunden hat, das dann später zurückgezogen wurde, kann das schon mal übersehen. Das Problem wird hier behandelt - mit Tool-Tipps, um solche Fehler zu vermeiden:
https://www.tub.tuhh.de/blog/2026/02/23/retraction-watch-zurueckgezogene-artikel/
#FediCampus, #WissenschaftlichesARbeiten #Literaturrecherche #Retraction
Ars Technica Publishes A Post With Quotes Fabricated By AI
Ars Technica recently published an article that had quotes that were fabricated by AI/LLMs. When called on it by the person who was “quoted” for the sheer fact that he was NEVER contacted for a quote, Ars did a retraction.
There’s much talk about the ethics here and some good commentary here.
On the latest episode of the TWiT podcast Intelligent Machines, Leo Laporte, Emily Forlini, and Jeff Jarvis talked about it more.
For context: Jeff is a journalism professor and author, Leo is a veteran radio guy, and Emily is a senior reporter at PCMag.
So these guys should have an opinion on this.
Jeff was even handed and explained it like you’d expect a professor to be. Emily was more where I’m at, this reporter needs to be fired. This gives journalism a bad name (one that the industry fights all the time to avoid).
I was a professional journalist for 6 years in the early 2000s, if someone made up quotes then they’d be axed without discussion.
Why not now?
There is no excuse! None!
This is as bad as Stephen Glass‘ fiasco at the New Republic and Jayson Blair at the NYTimes. This is just for the AI age.
What do you think? Am I too heated about this? I might be. But this really gets my blood boiling.😁😃🍻
#arsTechnica #ethicsInJournalism #journalism #myTake #retraction
Chubby (@kimmonismus)
작성자가 DeepSeek v4의 평가 결과가 가짜라는 통보를 받아 해당 게시물을 삭제하고 정정했다는 공지입니다. 잘못된 평가·주장에 대한 정정으로 연구·모델 평가 신뢰성 이슈를 알리는 내용입니다.
one thing I like about Wikidata's SPARQL endpoint(s), is how easy you can work out new ideas...
I still happy with this one: it shows the citations to a retracted article, *before* and *after* the retractions :) https://qlever.scholia.wiki/retraction/Q34377294#citations-per-year
More about retraction knowledge in @wikidata visualized with @wdscholia here: https://qlever.scholia.wiki/retraction/
Now there are two areas where it seems that increased #retraction rates are likely not due to increased scrutiny of published articles, but, rather, due to lower quality publications. I would still not bet that these data will help sway any of the “increased scrutiny” proponents.
https://bjoern.brembs.net/2026/01/retraction-data-are-still-useless-almost/
Update. A letter to the editor about a study I posted to this thread 11/23/25: "The suggestion that [the lower #retraction rate for women] is because male researchers undergo more scrutiny, propose bolder ideas and lead larger and more dynamic teams than do female researchers implies that male scientists are better at science. As female scientists, our lived experience points to alternative explanations: elevated rigour and scientific integrity by female scientists or more critical peer review of female-led manuscripts."
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-00120-y
(#paywalled)
Bich Nguyen
Scott M. Graffius
flypapers
Recherchemeisterin
Elisabeth Bik
Seth Goldstein
sayzard
Egon Willigh☮gen 🟥
Björn Brembs
petersuber