Are there any public examples of that? The retraction process is so unbelievably convoluted and slow that I am surprised to hear it is used for censorship.
Unfortunately, it appears that once Sci-Hub has a copy of a paper, it doesn’t necessarily have the ability to ensure it’s kept up to date. Based on a scan of its content done by researchers from India, about 85 percent of the invalid papers they checked had no indication that the paper had been retracted.
I think most people would use the publisher’s website first and then resort to scihub, because scihub requires a doi or publisher’s link to get the paper.
I don’t think this causes much concern, even if so, I believe a good amount of blame should still fall on the publishers and academic systems that encourages gatekeeping knowledge. Especially when these knowledges are practically generated by public money, then the public should rightfully have access to them.
I’m assuming actual researchers know better but Scihub is accessible in plenty of ways. Retracted papers could be shared as a means of spreading misinformation or simply just stumbled upon by regular folks looking up something specific.
I wonder how hard would it be to build a extension for a browser that checks the doi of the paper youre looking at on scihub against the live version, to see if there’s a retraction/update to the paper, and list the date of the changes. I assume that information wouldn’t be behind a paywall.
The reason for it being via an extension is to reduce load on sci hub, and for the lookup requests to be decentralised and live for the relevant paper
Shouldn’t be impossible. There are addons for Zotero (reference manager) to check CrossRef for citation count and one of the post-publishing review platforms for comments on the paper.
And?
It’s supposed to preserve them, retraction is sometimes used as a form of censorship. It’s a feature not a bug.
Are there any public examples of that? The retraction process is so unbelievably convoluted and slow that I am surprised to hear it is used for censorship.
There’s a study on it here: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10691350/
And here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266651822100022X
An article about a specific retraction of a study on mentorship: https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/checkpoints/202101/the-bad-retraction
The lancet removed (although not formally retracted) an article on covid-19 in Gaza https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/06/02/political-censorship-in-academic-journals-sets-a-dangerous-new-precedent/
China has allegedly forced at least one person to retract a study about public opinion on it https://retractionwatch.com/2024/07/10/author-blames-retraction-on-chinese-censorship/
Having access to retracted papers is nice but:
I think most people would use the publisher’s website first and then resort to scihub, because scihub requires a doi or publisher’s link to get the paper.
I don’t think this causes much concern, even if so, I believe a good amount of blame should still fall on the publishers and academic systems that encourages gatekeeping knowledge. Especially when these knowledges are practically generated by public money, then the public should rightfully have access to them.
I’m assuming actual researchers know better but Scihub is accessible in plenty of ways. Retracted papers could be shared as a means of spreading misinformation or simply just stumbled upon by regular folks looking up something specific.
I wonder how hard would it be to build a extension for a browser that checks the doi of the paper youre looking at on scihub against the live version, to see if there’s a retraction/update to the paper, and list the date of the changes. I assume that information wouldn’t be behind a paywall.
The reason for it being via an extension is to reduce load on sci hub, and for the lookup requests to be decentralised and live for the relevant paper
Shouldn’t be impossible. There are addons for Zotero (reference manager) to check CrossRef for citation count and one of the post-publishing review platforms for comments on the paper.