3 ms·
In my opinion the paper shouldn’t be take down. Instead a note should be added noting the concerns with the pre-print and that’s it’s likely fraudulent. Edit:
by elcritch 1y ago
In my opinion the paper shouldn’t be take down. Instead a note should be added noting the concerns with the pre-print and that’s it’s likely fraudulent.
Edit: Since the paper has been cited, others may still need to reference the paper to determine if it materially affects a paper citing it. If the paper is removed it’s just a void.
- aaron695 1y ago[dead]
- azinman2 1y agounless arXiv has a "there used to be a paper here, but it was retracted" page
- jinseokim 1y agoThat's what happens when a paper is withdrawn [1], and MIT requested to withdraw the paper [2]. This news title saying that they requested to take down the paper is subtly incorrect. [1]: https://info.arxiv.org/help/withdraw.html#:~:text=Previous%20versions%20remain%20accessible. https://info.arxiv.org/help/withdraw.html#:~:text=Previous%2... [2]: https://economics.mit.edu/news/assuring-accurate-research-record#:~:text=MIT%20respectfully%20request%20that%20the%20paper%20be%20marked%20as%20withdrawn https://economics.mit.edu/news/assuring-accurate-research-re...
- ugh123 1y agoI agree, the offense should have a public trail. But there should be safeguards to prevent any citing of fraudulent paper, not allowing for bits and pieces to outlive the offense. Citing papers should be marked with a warning until resolved by their authors.