Live data from Hacker News

Editor's Note: Retraction of article containing fabricated quotations

arstechnica.com

221–223 of 223 posts

Re: Editor's Note: Retraction of article containing fabricated quotations

#221
post #107
post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really refreshing to see someone owning up to their mistake, that is something rare nowadays.

What alternative action could he possibly take? He's owning up to something indisputable.

The DOW is at 50,000! 50,000! If you get this reference (and even if you don’t), there are many alternative actions he could have taken, including not acknowledging this at all.

Re: Editor's Note: Retraction of article containing fabricated quotations

#223
post #9

Odd that there's no link to the retracted article. Thread on Arstechnica forum: https://arstechnica.com/civis/threads/editor%E2%80%99s-note-... The retracted article: https://web.archive.org/web/20260213194851/https://arstechni...

> Odd that there's no link to the retracted article. Well, it's retracted . That means that it shouldn't exist any more, so while they could link to the archive, it defeats the point of retracting it if they do so, right?

In academic publishing the normal way to handle a retraction is to flag the article as retracted, not delete it. Partly that's a legacy thing from print media (you can publish a notice of retraction but you can't un-publish a physical journal copy). But it's also about traceability; you don't get to pretend you never messed up by putting the article out in the first place.
Post reply on HN