[deleted]

Comments

• reallykindasorta@slrpnk.net ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  The journal publisher also stated that “the authors had not responded to correspondence regarding the retraction.”

  lol

  source

  • reallykindasorta@slrpnk.net ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Also the corresponding author’s email is @163.com… is that common for academics in china? Typically this is a university email in the US and Europe.

    source
• JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Academics finally figure out what CS people in the field have been saying for years?

  source

  • emmy5482@quokk.au ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Academics know. Journals have to retract.

    Almost all papers referencing this retracted one cite problems with methodology and definitions.

    So yeah. They knew. The journal took convincing though.

    source