Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Special report
 Article display preview: | This is a draft of a potential Signpost article, and should not be interpreted as a finished piece. Its content is subject to review by the editorial team and ultimately by JPxG, the editor in chief. Please do not link to this draft as it is unfinished and the URL will change upon publication. If you would like to contribute and are familiar with the requirements of a Signpost article, feel free to be bold in making improvements!
| ||||
RetractionBot is back to life!
A bit of history, context, and what you can expect to see in articles
RetractionBot, from pre-history to v2[edit]
Back in 2012, Doc James (talk · contribs) made a query over at WikiProject Medicine about what sort of work could be done by a bot to find retracted papers. At the time, there was no centralized way of finding about retracted papers, so Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) queried the PubMed database looking for retraction-related keywords (like 'retraction of publication' in the metadata). Of the roughly 4000 retractions, he found 138 that matched papers cited on Wikipedia. The template {{Retracted}} was created to flag those papers, and was manually and semi-automatically added to articles.
Then in 2018, JenOttawa (talk · contribs) noticed the then newly-launched Retractiondatabase.org, a database of retractions maintained by Retraction Watch. This lead to Samwalton9 (talk · contribs) to code the first iteration of RetractionBot. The bot was then doing automatically what people did manually, saving everyone a lot of hassle. However, the bot only ran for a few months, and hit a snag: several Cochrane Reviews were flagged as retracted for technical reasons, while they were never retracted in actuality. The bot was put on hiatus, and Samwalton never got to fixing the issue.
5 years later, motivated by the slew of retractions hitting major publishers from Elsevier, Hindawi, SAGE, and from the opening up of RetractionDatabase.org (now with nearly 40,000 retractions), I thought it would do us some good to kick the hornet's nest and see if I could interest someone in revisiting this project.
Turns out I could. Not even a week after probbing the volunteers at WP:BOTREQ, mdann52 (talk · contribs) graciously took over maintenance of RetractionBot (talk · contribs), and the bot is now back alive, with many improvements. In particular, it now covers expressions of concerns, not only retractions, which are early warning signs that a paper might be dubious and could be retracted/in need of a major revision. This lead to the creation of {{expression of concern}}, which works very similarly to {{retracted}} (see below).
What the bot does[edit]
The bot first downloads a .csv file containing all the information in the RetractionDatabase (a 50MB download available here). Then it crosscheck retracted DOIs and PMIDs in the database against those found on Wikipedia.
If a match is found, the bot will, for example, change
- ...Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.
<ref>Restrepo-Arango, Marcos; Gutiérrez-Builes, Lina Andrea; Ríos-Osorio, Leonardo Alberto (April 2018). "Seguridad alimentaria en poblaciones indígenas y campesinas: una revisión sistemática". Ciência & Saúde Coletiva. 23 (4): 1169–1181. doi:10.1590/1413-81232018234.13882016. PMID 29694594.</ref>
to
- ...Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.
<ref>Restrepo-Arango, Marcos; Gutiérrez-Builes, Lina Andrea; Ríos-Osorio, Leonardo Alberto (April 2018). "Seguridad alimentaria en poblaciones indígenas y campesinas: una revisión sistemática". Ciência & Saúde Coletiva. 23 (4): 1169–1181. doi:10.1590/1413-81232018234.13882016. PMID 29694594. (Retracted, see doi:10.1590/1413-81232018241.32242011, PMID 30698268, Retraction Watch)</ref>
It is now up to humans like you to review if this is problematic for the article. If the citation is no longer reliable, then the article needs to be updated, which could be as minor as the removal/replacement of the citation with a reliable one, to rewriting an entire section that was based on flawed premises. If the citation to a retracted paper was intentional, like in the context of a controversy noting that a paper was later retracted, you can repalce {{retracted|...}} with {{retracted|...|intentional=yes}}, suppressing the red notice
- ...Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.
<ref>Restrepo-Arango, Marcos; Gutiérrez-Builes, Lina Andrea; Ríos-Osorio, Leonardo Alberto (April 2018). "Seguridad alimentaria en poblaciones indígenas y campesinas: una revisión sistemática". Ciência & Saúde Coletiva. 23 (4): 1169–1181. doi:10.1590/1413-81232018234.13882016. PMID 29694594. (Retracted, see doi:10.1590/1413-81232018241.32242011, PMID 30698268, Retraction Watch )</ref>
What you can do[edit]
If you are interested in doing systematic work involving Wikipedia articles citing retractions, the category Category:Articles citing retracted publications will be automatically populated by {{retracted}}. The retractions that haven't yet been review by human can be found in the sub-category Category:Articles unintentionally citing retracted publications instead .
Otherwise? Well... carry on as usual. But if you see one of those big red notices, don't panic. Treat it like any other unreliable source, and update the article accordingly. If a retraction paper (or one with an expression of concern) is intentionally cited, then simply follow the instructions and replace {{retracted|...}} with {{retracted|...|intentional=yes}} (or {{expression of concern|...}} with {{expression of concern|...|intentional=yes}}) to suppress the red notice.
And while these are not currently handled by RetractionBot, {{erratum}} and Category:Articles citing publications with errata/Category:Articles unintentionally citing publications with errata work very similar to the above categories for papers with errata and might also be of interest to you.
Happy editing!
Discuss this story
(This allows for greater visibility of discussions, makes archiving easier, and prevents discussions becoming disconnected from articles during the publication process)
brief note[edit]
Hey, Oltrepier! Just wanted to let you know that phase II of admin recall has ended open discussion and is now in specific questions :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and I believe the user is isaacl, not isaac- and thanks again for writing this up :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]