I seriously challenge this mentality / interpretation of a retraction signalling fraud. This is absurd, and actively harmful. Quite the contrary, a retraction

I seriously challenge this mentality / interpretation of a retraction signalling fraud. This is absurd, and actively harmful. Quite the contrary, a retraction is often a signal of good scientific citizenship and due diligence, which may well come from due diligence of the authors themselves, not just external validators. NOT retracting a paper out of fear of being labelled a fraud and ostracised from the scientific community is a massive, unhealthy disincentive which we DEFINITELY do not need in the sciences. The article is VERY careful not to paint retracted papers with such ludicrous stigma; the focus is very appropriately on authors who add "inherited" citations without the necessary due diligence (i.e. actually attempting to read the paper in question, and finding out it has been retracted, for whatever reason)