Upgrade StorageRetracted Items - false positives possible?
Thank you for the retracted items feature.Is it possible this service could throw false positives?
It marked one item in my database as retracted, but it seems the article had a correction but is still citable.
Original article link: https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/68/4/281/4644513
Retraction notice: https://retractionwatch.com/2018/04/02/caught-our-notice-climate-change-leads-to-more-neurosurgery-for-polar-bears/
It marked one item in my database as retracted, but it seems the article had a correction but is still citable.
Original article link: https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/68/4/281/4644513
Retraction notice: https://retractionwatch.com/2018/04/02/caught-our-notice-climate-change-leads-to-more-neurosurgery-for-polar-bears/
RW has a "RetractionNature" field, but the only value ever used is "Retraction".See update below.In this case, the "Reason" given is "Conflict of Interest", explained as "Authors having affiliations with companies, associations, or institutions that may serve to influence their belief about their findings".188BET靠谱吗The retraction DOI in the RW DB (and provided as the retraction notice link in Zotero) is also now a 404, because the initial DOI was incorrect from the publisher.That's since been fixed by OUP, but RW hasn't updated their DB with the new DOI.We'll put in a manual correction for now.We can ask RW if it's possible to start using the RetractionNature field, since it's true that the "This item has been retracted" message we show is a bit misleading in some cases — and even theirblog postabout this case, which we link to, requires some close reading to understand the situation.I've got an article that was flagged as a "mistake attributed to a Journal Editor or Publisher" and replaced in a later issue.Problem is, the PDF and all the metadata are for the later corrected version — different issue number, page numbers, DOI, everything.The paper's from 2011, so I think it's safe to assume that Retraction Watch is never going to get around to fixing whatever the problem is on their end.188BET靠谱吗It's up to Zotero to help me not to have to see a giant red warning filling half my screen every time I look at this paper for the rest of my life.
188BET靠谱吗You can turn off the feature altogether if you want to, but we're not going to provide a way to simply hide warnings — if anything, we'd create a mechanism to report false positives within Zotero.188BET靠谱吗But until we have a sense of how widespread false positives are in the RW data, just reporting them here like any other bug — or emailing support@zotero.org if you don't want to post publicly — will let us fix them for all Zotero users.188BET靠谱吗We've removed the mislabeled correction reported above, so that should have been unflagged (as long as you're running Zotero 5.0.68, which adds removal processing).
188BET靠谱吗"we'd create a mechanism to report false positives within Zotero."
That would be great.
If anything, I think it would actually make sense to handle Unfiled Files/Duplicate Items the same way, but we can't determine whether those are empty in an efficient manner.
If you insert an item that's already retracted and click through the warning, we're also continuing to show the warning when you reselect that item from the Cited section of the citation dialog, which we probably shouldn't do (or we should have the same checkbox in that dialog too). Do we know how common this is?As I say, this really seems like bad practice on the part of the journals.
Retraction Watch tagged both of these articles with the "Retract and Replace" reason, which has the description "The permanent change of an item to a non-citable status, with a subsequent republication by the same journal after substantial changes to the item".That's correct in the more abstract sense of citability, but not in the more literal sense of citing a given item by its DOI.
If this is somewhat common, other than having people complain to journals, we probably should add an option for items with the "Retract and Replace" tag to hide all further warnings, which you could use once you've retrieved an updated PDF (and possibly metadata).If you have the original PDF, the retraction warning is still important, so we shouldn't actually blacklist these — and we should probably restore the warning for the one above.
I agree with the idea of somehow being able to check the metadata of the PDF.An obvious idea would be that if the PDF creation date is later than the retraction date, the warning should be suppressed.As far as I can tell, that did not fix the issue with the item I'm describing.
https://twitter.com/CrossrefOrg/status/1145393244588707840
188BET靠谱吗Or, in less flowery language: they are way too high and mighty to change, so Zotero compensating for their bad practices is my only hope of not being alerted to death.
For items with the "Retract and Replace" reason, I've added a "Hide warning for replaced work…" link in the item pane, which pops up a dialog that explains that some journals incorrectly reuse the DOI/PMID and lets you permanently hide the retraction warning if you've confirmed that you have the latest version of the work.This isn't ideal, since it's given as an option even for replaced items that genuinely shouldn't be cited, from journals doing the right thing, but we don't really have a better option.Journals like JAMA are just breaking DOIs here.
Example of retraction because publisher published the the "wrong journal".There is nothing wrong with the article itself.I learned that the article was submitted for publication in BMC Health Serv Res but was instead published in a different journal.
"The Publisher has retracted this article [1] because it was published in this journal in error.This article is republished in BMC Health Services Research [2]."
1.Isr J Health Policy Res.2019;8:44. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13584-019-0330-8
2.BMC Health Serv Res.2019. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4268-x