189:
127:
147:
1821:
498:
209:
107:
120:
137:
36:
157:
117:
167:
1622:
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
1731:
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
2064:
In the early 1990s, it was hypothesized that autism could be caused or aggravated by opioid peptides like casomorphine that are metabolic products of gluten and casein. Based on that hypothesis, diets that eliminate foods containing either gluten or casein, or both, are widely promoted, and many
1921:
2112:, then yes, that's a good reason to not rely on it. If an article is retracted because a diligent body like the Cochrane Collaboration are concerned that it might be in need of an update... that doesn't immediately make it useless. Editors have brains, and
900:
2259:. The consensus over there, seemed/seems to be that the 2008 paper had not been withdrawn, but I'm still trying to get my head around that and other papers and exactly how they've handled it before I actually process Cochrane Review stuff!
2208:
I'd argue it was good luck. I didn't have room in the piece to got into the nitty gritty, and didn't really know how to summarize the issue concisely and intelligibly. But here, with more space, you summarized it better than I ever could.
2065:
testimonials can be found describing benefits in autism-related symptoms, notably social engagement and verbal skills. Studies supporting those claims had significant flaws, so those data were inadequate to guide treatment recommendations.
160:
2081:
The second sentence is uncited—but it does not seem particularly unbelievable that people jumped on a hypothetical link between gluten/casein metabolisation and autism and promoted diets around it of dubious credibility. Knowledge has an
130:
2010:
Aren't retracted articles below unreliable sources in terms of quality? With an unreliable source, we don't know if the information is good or not; with a retracted article, we know that somebody has found a major problem. No?
2102:
This review was withdrawn from the
Cochrane Library in Issue 4, 2019, as it has not been updated since its last revision in 2008. The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from
170:
150:
278:
369:
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
Knowledge. The template
346:
2070:
The claim in the first sentence—that there was a hypothesis of a link between autism and metabolic products of gluten or casein—is supported by a 1991 paper. That paper isn't online, but the
1225:
1652:
Restrepo-Arango, Marcos; Gutiérrez-Builes, Lina Andrea; Ríos-Osorio, Leonardo
Alberto (April 2018). "Seguridad alimentaria en poblaciones indígenas y campesinas: una revisión sistemática".
1546:
Restrepo-Arango, Marcos; Gutiérrez-Builes, Lina Andrea; Ríos-Osorio, Leonardo
Alberto (April 2018). "Seguridad alimentaria en poblaciones indígenas y campesinas: una revisión sistemática".
1504:
Restrepo-Arango, Marcos; Gutiérrez-Builes, Lina Andrea; Ríos-Osorio, Leonardo
Alberto (April 2018). "Seguridad alimentaria en poblaciones indígenas y campesinas: una revisión sistemática".
2124:
advised in deciding whether to continue using it. If the article was retracted because it is a load of made up junk, that's a real problem. But that's not always going to be the case. —
87:
1449:
1293:
2190:
thinking hard about it. Between the rapid rise in conspiracy theories, the replication crisis and the preprint-to-tweet pipeline that flourished during the peak years of COVID,
1778:
93:
991:
718:
705:
666:
653:
1711:
679:
237:
874:
731:
692:
625:
599:
567:
539:
323:
1936:
861:
809:
770:
757:
387:
420:
were flagged as retracted for technical reasons, while they were never retracted in actuality. The bot was put on hiatus, and
Samwalton9 never got to fixing the issue.
2108:
They're not saying "this is debunked nonsense", they're saying "it's old and unless the article gets updated, our policy is to retract it". If an article is retracted
1423:
1410:
414:. 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
1865:
1850:
1384:
465:, 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 led to the creation of
436:
1880:
1436:
1397:
1371:
1358:
1345:
1332:
1319:
1306:
1277:
1264:
1251:
1238:
1212:
1199:
1186:
1173:
1160:
1147:
1134:
1121:
1108:
1095:
1082:
1069:
1056:
1043:
1030:
1017:
1004:
978:
965:
952:
939:
926:
913:
887:
822:
796:
783:
744:
310:
140:
2256:
1875:
1855:
848:
1895:
1845:
1808:
1799:
263:
835:
638:
552:
526:
2133:
2018:
1860:
2251:
well, you've just cited the exact article which is partially why the bot stopped running in the first place and has been causing me struggles since - see
2046:
732:
Barnstars work; Wiktionary assessed; cleanup tags counted; finding expert admins; discussion peaks; Knowledge citations in academic publications; and more
1838:
250:
2361:
612:
411:
432:
2389:
2273:
I'm personally just tempted to remove all retracted notices from
Cochrane Reviews and let Pi bot deal with it. But we should have that discussion at
1782:
1694:
1588:
2232:
2203:
2186:
It's incredibly bad luck that I happened to randomly choose this as an example then. I'm glad people who actually know something about these topics
2181:
2003:
428:
2375:
2331:
2268:
1832:
55:
44:
2300:
2052:
1910:
1870:
1725:
2345:
2155:
2090:
1967:
1905:
2151:
1900:
1885:
2441:
199:
424:
1958:
Good idea for a bot - never heard about it or seen it in action, but I'm glad it's back up and running - kudos to those responsible! —
1941:
745:
Journalist regrets not checking citation, PR firms issue advice on how to "survive" Knowledge (but U.S. Congressman caught red-handed)
2252:
1948:
21:
2417:
1623:
retracted paper was intentional, like in the context of a controversy noting that a paper was later retracted, you can replace
110:
1643:...Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.
1537:...Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.
1495:...Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.
2412:
2407:
1973:
2402:
443:
188:
1925:
1976:
if you want to see some of its edits. Though the categories mentioned in the article are the best way to check what
30:
RetractionBot is back to life!: ... and flagging your articles with big ugly red notices! (This is a good thing.)
626:
Detecting spam, and pages to protect; non-anonymous editors signal their intelligence with high-quality articles
2287:
2219:
2168:
2033:
1990:
1759:
1751:
469:
2083:
1710:
If you are interested in doing systematic work involving
Knowledge articles citing retractions, the category
2397:
1820:
49:
35:
17:
2142:
were flagged as retracted for technical reasons". Ideally, RetractionBot would leave those alone, and let
2336:
Instead, I diddled the formatting of the example references; see edit summary for details/justification.
2074:
says it is based on a study of 30 children. It doesn't really matter whether it is accurate, because it
1481:
380:
488:
2078:
establish what it is being cited for—that a hypothesis of the sort existed, not that it is true.
2357:
1705:
2194:
seems to have had a tough time recently—any effort to try and fix that that is commendable. —
2014:
1724:. The retractions that haven't yet been reviewed by a human can be found in the sub-category
784:
Good faith vs. bad faith, climate change, court citations, weirdest medieval fact, brief news
462:
2423:
2199:
2129:
1963:
362:
8:
2023:
That's why we're flagging them. This way we don't cite them thinking they are reliable.
1476:
file containing all the information in the
RetractionDatabase (a 50MB download available
2094:
2283:
2274:
2243:
2215:
2164:
2120:
Knowledge uses it as a source and the reasons behind the article's retraction would be
2029:
1986:
1743:
1735:
1718:
1634:
1626:
1605:
1597:
479:
458:
373:
1683:
1665:
1577:
1559:
1517:
461:, and the bot is now back alive, with many improvements. In particular, it now covers
2371:
2353:
2341:
2327:
2264:
1932:
1687:
1669:
1581:
1563:
1521:
1477:
423:
Five years later, motivated by the slew of retractions hitting major publishers from
2089:
The final sentence—saying that there isn't really any truth to the hypothesis—cites
2319:
2295:
2227:
2176:
2056:
2041:
1998:
1771:
1679:
1661:
1573:
1555:
1513:
450:
416:
402:
2248:
2195:
2125:
2113:
1959:
693:
Gender gap and skills gap; academic citations on the rise; European food cultures
407:
358:
2071:
2291:
2223:
2172:
2059:, a topic I don't know very much about. The relevant text in the article reads:
2037:
1994:
391:
350:
2138:
The
Cochrane review being flagged here is what I was referring to by "several
2435:
2279:
2211:
2160:
2025:
1982:
758:
Oral citations; the state of global development; a gentler Huggle; brief news
354:
180:
2257:
Knowledge talk:WikiProject Medicine#Dealing with Cochrane Review retractions
442:(now with nearly 40,000 retractions), I thought it would do us some good to
361:. At the time, there was no centralized way of finding retracted papers, so
68:
File:Red flag warning banner at Cal Fire Green Springs Station, May 2022.JPG
2367:
2337:
2323:
2260:
1690:
1672:
1584:
1566:
1524:
454:
1651:
1594:. If this is an intentional citation to a retracted paper, please replace
1545:
1503:
2143:
1424:
Knowledge described as best or worst of the Web, depending on the source
2051:
Generally, but not always. Upon reading this article, I took a look at
196:
A bit of history, context, and what you can expect to see in articles
2097:
originally published in 2008. Why was the Cochrane review retracted?
1437:
In the media: Prolific editors featured, German magazine plagiarizes
449:
Turns out I could. Not even a week after probbing the volunteers at
810:
WMF Elections, Annual Financial Plan, Google Image Search, and more
1294:
Featured article citation rules discussed, featured lists invented
849:
Efforts to reform Requests for Adminship spark animated discussion
1252:
Knowledge inspires fight against disease, newspaper "wikitorials"
1226:
Even without London events, Knowledge draws media coverage, award
654:
Reliable Sources Noticeboard editors discuss deprecating sources
446:
and see if I could interest someone in revisiting this project.
396:
1786:
1779:
Category:Articles intentionally citing publications with errata
366:
2352:
Wow this is a real public service, thank you to all involved.
797:
Knowledge in British schools, Hitler's Downfall meme, and more
1712:
Category:Articles intentionally citing retracted publications
1785:
work very similarly to the above categories for papers with
1767:
And while these are not currently handled by RetractionBot,
1213:
Knowledge praised in media, including by competitor of sorts
1485:
1473:
1307:
In the news: Knowledge serves as supplement to science, BBC
771:
Second Wikipedian in Residence, citation needed for sanity
568:
The unexpected rabbit hole of typo fixing in citations...
2253:
User talk:RetractionBot#How to avoid an edit warring bot
1491:
If a match is found, the bot will, for example, change
311:
Dispatches: Reliable sources in content review processes
1411:
Outside sites build more indexes and links to Knowledge
1200:
Knowledge citations abound; Wikimania article published
379:
was created to flag those papers, and was manually and
357:
about what sort of work could be done by a bot to find
1372:
Press covers Knowledge after being beaten to the punch
901:
Knowledge cited by the High Court of England and Wales
527:
Tens of thousands of freely available sources flagged
324:
Poll finds people think Knowledge "somewhat reliable"
1385:
Media covers German Knowledge DVD, plans for English
706:
Citations, non-free content, and a MediaWiki meeting
279:
Philosophers analyze Knowledge as a knowledge source
1946:If your comment has not appeared here, you can try
306:
1488:in the database against those found on Knowledge.
1398:News outlets note Knowledge's rapid updates, jokes
1783:Category:Articles citing publications with errata
595:
2433:
862:News and notes: More legal citations, milestones
2311:Currently resisting the temptation to wikilink
2084:entire category on autism-related pseudoscience
2053:Category:Articles citing retracted publications
1726:Category:Articles citing retracted publications
1239:Media focus on collaboration includes Knowledge
2156:Knowledge:WikiProject Medicine/Cochrane update
719:WebCite proposal; request for adminship reform
600:Cleaning up awful citations with Citation bot
178:
992:Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
875:Court decisions citing Knowledge proliferate
1450:Student use of Knowledge citations debated
400:, a database of retractions maintained by
667:New guideline for technical collaboration
1949:
14:
2434:
1789:and might also be of interest to you.
200:RetractionBot, from pre-history to v2
54:
29:
1359:Encarta pseudo-wiki debate continues
457:graciously took over maintenance of
2442:Knowledge Signpost archives 2024-06
1974:Special:Contributions/RetractionBot
1714:will be automatically populated by
823:Lessons for Brits, patent citations
27:
1819:
1455:
1442:
1429:
1416:
1403:
1390:
1377:
1364:
1351:
1338:
1325:
1312:
1299:
1286:
1270:
1257:
1244:
1231:
1218:
1205:
1192:
1179:
1166:
1153:
1140:
1127:
1114:
1101:
1088:
1075:
1062:
1049:
1036:
1023:
1010:
997:
984:
971:
958:
945:
932:
919:
906:
893:
880:
867:
854:
841:
828:
815:
802:
789:
776:
763:
750:
737:
724:
711:
698:
685:
672:
659:
646:
631:
618:
605:
573:
560:
545:
532:
519:
496:
435:, and many others, as well as the
329:
316:
284:
271:
256:
243:
230:
207:
56:
34:
28:
2453:
1931:These comments are automatically
1684:10.1590/1413-81232018241.32242011
1666:10.1590/1413-81232018234.13882016
1578:10.1590/1413-81232018241.32242011
1560:10.1590/1413-81232018234.13882016
1518:10.1590/1413-81232018234.13882016
1480:). Then it crosschecks retracted
475:, which works very similarly to
412:first iteration of RetractionBot
394:noticed the then newly-launched
224:
187:
165:
155:
145:
135:
125:
115:
105:
2390:putting together the next issue
1942:add the page to your watchlist
1764:) to suppress the red notice.
514:RetractionBot is back to life!
513:
225:RetractionBot is back to life!
88:RetractionBot is back to life!
13:
1:
1639:, suppressing the red notice
1917:
1654:Ciência & Saúde Coletiva
1548:Ciência & Saúde Coletiva
1506:Ciência & Saúde Coletiva
18:Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost
7:
554:Journals cited by Knowledge
540:Citation tools for dummies!
238:Citation tools for dummies!
10:
2458:
1472:The bot first downloads a
836:Tutorial: Adding citations
2376:17:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
2233:23:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
2204:14:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
2055:, and clicked through to
640:The Knowledge SourceWatch
265:The Knowledge SourceWatch
2362:07:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
2346:05:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
2332:04:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
2301:17:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
2269:16:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
2182:16:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
2134:16:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
2116:. Carefully considering
2047:01:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
2019:00:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
2004:12:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
1968:12:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
1346:Press coverage this week
1333:Press coverage this week
1320:Press coverage this week
1265:Press coverage this week
1618:It is now up to humans
463:expressions of concerns
2114:it is fine to use them
2105:
2067:
1939:. To follow comments,
1824:
1762:|...|intentional=yes}}
1746:|...|intentional=yes}}
1637:|...|intentional=yes}}
1608:|...|intentional=yes}}
1278:Knowledge featured in
501:
444:kick the hornet's nest
439:RetractionDatabase.org
397:RetractionDatabase.org
212:
39:
2100:
2091:a 2006 review article
2062:
1823:
1760:expression of concern
1752:expression of concern
1187:Knowledge in the news
1174:Knowledge in the news
1161:Knowledge in the news
1148:Knowledge in the news
1135:Knowledge in the news
1122:Knowledge in the news
1109:Knowledge in the news
1096:Knowledge in the news
1083:Knowledge in the news
1070:Knowledge in the news
1057:Knowledge in the news
1044:Knowledge in the news
1031:Knowledge in the news
1018:Knowledge in the news
1005:Knowledge in the news
979:Knowledge in the news
966:Knowledge in the news
953:Knowledge in the news
940:Knowledge in the news
927:Knowledge in the news
914:Knowledge in the news
888:Knowledge in the news
500:
470:expression of concern
353:made a query over at
251:Re-righting Knowledge
211:
38:
2255:and (more recently)
2093:and a now retracted
1935:from this article's
680:Citations are needed
613:Yes, the sky is blue
355:WikiProject Medicine
383:added to articles.
2110:because it's trash
1980:needs attention.
1926:Discuss this story
1825:
1812:"Special report" →
502:
381:semi-automatically
213:
45:← Back to Contents
40:
2247:
1950:purging the cache
1866:News from the WMF
1851:Technology report
1701:
1614:
1529:
1466:
1465:
1154:12 September 2005
1141:19 September 2005
1128:26 September 2005
489:What the bot does
340:
339:
50:View Latest Issue
2449:
2426:
2388:needs your help
2320:Viewers like you
2299:
2241:
2231:
2180:
2148:Cochrane Reviews
2140:Cochrane Reviews
2057:Autism therapies
2045:
2017:
2015:Compassionate727
2002:
1953:
1951:
1945:
1924:
1881:Featured content
1843:
1835:
1828:
1811:
1804:"Special report"
1803:
1776:
1770:
1763:
1755:
1747:
1739:
1723:
1717:
1702:
1700:
1696:Retraction Watch
1678:(Retracted, see
1676:
1660:(4): 1169–1181.
1650:
1638:
1630:
1615:
1613:
1611:
1609:
1601:
1590:Retraction Watch
1572:(Retracted, see
1570:
1554:(4): 1169–1181.
1544:
1530:
1528:
1512:(4): 1169–1181.
1502:
1457:
1444:
1431:
1418:
1405:
1392:
1379:
1366:
1353:
1340:
1327:
1314:
1301:
1288:
1272:
1259:
1246:
1233:
1220:
1207:
1194:
1181:
1168:
1167:5 September 2005
1155:
1142:
1129:
1116:
1103:
1090:
1077:
1064:
1051:
1038:
1037:14 November 2005
1025:
1024:21 November 2005
1012:
1011:28 November 2005
999:
998:28 November 2005
986:
985:19 December 2005
973:
972:26 December 2005
960:
947:
934:
933:20 February 2006
921:
908:
895:
882:
869:
856:
843:
830:
829:23 February 2009
817:
804:
791:
778:
765:
752:
739:
726:
725:11 February 2013
713:
700:
699:26 November 2014
687:
674:
661:
660:24 December 2018
648:
633:
620:
607:
581:
580:
575:
562:
547:
534:
521:
505:
504:Related articles
499:
484:
478:
474:
468:
417:Cochrane Reviews
403:Retraction Watch
378:
372:
359:retracted papers
331:
318:
292:
291:
286:
285:23 February 2009
273:
258:
257:29 November 2020
245:
232:
216:
215:Related articles
210:
191:
183:
169:
168:
159:
158:
149:
148:
139:
138:
129:
128:
119:
118:
109:
108:
62:
60:
58:
2457:
2456:
2452:
2451:
2450:
2448:
2447:
2446:
2432:
2431:
2430:
2429:
2428:
2427:
2422:
2420:
2415:
2410:
2405:
2400:
2393:
2382:
2381:
2366:Great article!
2278:
2210:
2159:
2095:Cochrane review
2024:
2012:
1981:
1955:
1947:
1940:
1929:
1928:
1922:+ Add a comment
1920:
1916:
1915:
1914:
1876:Recent research
1856:Deletion report
1836:
1831:
1829:
1826:
1815:
1814:
1809:
1806:
1801:
1795:
1794:
1792:Happy editing!
1774:
1768:
1757:
1749:
1741:
1733:
1721:
1715:
1708:
1706:What you can do
1703:
1677:
1649:
1632:
1624:
1616:
1603:
1595:
1593:
1571:
1543:
1531:
1501:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1462:
1102:10 October 2005
1089:17 October 2005
1076:24 October 2005
1063:31 October 2005
1050:7 November 2005
959:16 January 2006
946:6 February 2006
881:29 January 2007
868:5 February 2007
842:4 February 2008
803:11 January 2010
790:25 October 2010
777:8 November 2010
686:14 January 2015
673:4 November 2016
533:4 December 2023
509:
508:
503:
497:
492:
491:
482:
476:
472:
466:
376:
370:
363:Rich Farmbrough
343:
342:
341:
336:
220:
219:
214:
208:
203:
202:
192:
185:
184:
177:
176:
175:
166:
156:
146:
136:
126:
116:
106:
100:
97:
86:
82:
81:
78:
75:
72:
69:
65:
63:
53:
52:
47:
41:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
2455:
2445:
2444:
2421:
2416:
2411:
2406:
2401:
2396:
2395:
2394:
2384:
2383:
2380:
2379:
2378:
2364:
2350:
2349:
2348:
2309:
2308:
2307:
2306:
2305:
2304:
2303:
2239:
2238:
2237:
2236:
2235:
2106:
2098:
2087:
2079:
2068:
2060:
2049:
2008:
2007:
2006:
1930:
1927:
1919:
1918:
1913:
1908:
1903:
1898:
1896:Traffic report
1893:
1891:Special report
1888:
1883:
1878:
1873:
1868:
1863:
1858:
1853:
1848:
1846:News and notes
1842:
1830:
1818:
1817:
1816:
1807:
1798:
1797:
1796:
1707:
1704:
1647:
1646:
1645:
1644:
1541:
1540:
1539:
1538:
1499:
1498:
1497:
1496:
1470:
1464:
1463:
1460:
1459:
1453:
1447:
1446:
1440:
1434:
1433:
1427:
1421:
1420:
1414:
1408:
1407:
1401:
1395:
1394:
1388:
1382:
1381:
1375:
1369:
1368:
1362:
1356:
1355:
1349:
1343:
1342:
1336:
1330:
1329:
1323:
1317:
1316:
1310:
1304:
1303:
1297:
1291:
1290:
1284:
1275:
1274:
1268:
1262:
1261:
1255:
1249:
1248:
1242:
1236:
1235:
1229:
1223:
1222:
1216:
1210:
1209:
1206:15 August 2005
1203:
1197:
1196:
1193:22 August 2005
1190:
1184:
1183:
1180:29 August 2005
1177:
1171:
1170:
1164:
1158:
1157:
1151:
1145:
1144:
1138:
1132:
1131:
1125:
1119:
1118:
1115:3 October 2005
1112:
1106:
1105:
1099:
1093:
1092:
1086:
1080:
1079:
1073:
1067:
1066:
1060:
1054:
1053:
1047:
1041:
1040:
1034:
1028:
1027:
1021:
1015:
1014:
1008:
1002:
1001:
995:
989:
988:
982:
976:
975:
969:
963:
962:
956:
950:
949:
943:
937:
936:
930:
924:
923:
917:
911:
910:
904:
898:
897:
894:14 August 2006
891:
885:
884:
878:
872:
871:
865:
859:
858:
852:
846:
845:
839:
833:
832:
826:
820:
819:
813:
807:
806:
800:
794:
793:
787:
781:
780:
774:
768:
767:
761:
755:
754:
751:22 August 2011
748:
742:
741:
735:
729:
728:
722:
716:
715:
709:
703:
702:
696:
690:
689:
683:
677:
676:
670:
664:
663:
657:
651:
650:
644:
636:
635:
632:30 August 2020
629:
623:
622:
616:
610:
609:
603:
596:
593:
592:
584:
578:
577:
574:31 August 2022
571:
565:
564:
558:
550:
549:
543:
537:
536:
530:
524:
523:
517:
510:
506:
495:
494:
493:
490:
487:
437:opening up of
344:
338:
337:
334:
333:
327:
321:
320:
314:
307:
304:
303:
295:
289:
288:
282:
276:
275:
269:
261:
260:
254:
248:
247:
241:
235:
234:
228:
221:
217:
206:
205:
204:
201:
198:
194:
193:
186:
174:
173:
163:
153:
143:
133:
123:
113:
102:
101:
98:
92:
91:
90:
89:
85:Special report
84:
83:
79:
76:
73:
70:
67:
66:
64:
61:
48:
43:
42:
33:
32:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2454:
2443:
2440:
2439:
2437:
2425:
2419:
2414:
2409:
2404:
2399:
2391:
2387:
2377:
2373:
2369:
2365:
2363:
2359:
2355:
2351:
2347:
2343:
2339:
2335:
2334:
2333:
2329:
2325:
2321:
2317:
2316:
2310:
2302:
2297:
2293:
2289:
2285:
2281:
2276:
2272:
2271:
2270:
2266:
2262:
2258:
2254:
2250:
2245:
2244:edit conflict
2240:
2234:
2229:
2225:
2221:
2217:
2213:
2207:
2206:
2205:
2201:
2197:
2193:
2192:knowing stuff
2189:
2185:
2184:
2183:
2178:
2174:
2170:
2166:
2162:
2157:
2153:
2149:
2145:
2141:
2137:
2136:
2135:
2131:
2127:
2123:
2119:
2115:
2111:
2107:
2104:
2099:
2096:
2092:
2088:
2085:
2080:
2077:
2073:
2069:
2066:
2061:
2058:
2054:
2050:
2048:
2043:
2039:
2035:
2031:
2027:
2022:
2021:
2020:
2016:
2009:
2005:
2000:
1996:
1992:
1988:
1984:
1979:
1975:
1971:
1970:
1969:
1965:
1961:
1957:
1956:
1952:
1943:
1938:
1934:
1923:
1912:
1909:
1907:
1904:
1902:
1899:
1897:
1894:
1892:
1889:
1887:
1884:
1882:
1879:
1877:
1874:
1872:
1869:
1867:
1864:
1862:
1859:
1857:
1854:
1852:
1849:
1847:
1844:
1840:
1834:
1827:In this issue
1822:
1813:
1805:
1793:
1790:
1788:
1784:
1780:
1773:
1765:
1761:
1753:
1745:
1737:
1729:
1727:
1720:
1713:
1698:
1697:
1692:
1689:
1685:
1681:
1674:
1671:
1667:
1663:
1659:
1655:
1642:
1641:
1640:
1636:
1628:
1621:
1607:
1599:
1592:
1591:
1586:
1583:
1579:
1575:
1568:
1565:
1561:
1557:
1553:
1549:
1536:
1535:
1534:
1526:
1523:
1519:
1515:
1511:
1507:
1494:
1493:
1492:
1489:
1487:
1483:
1479:
1475:
1461:
1458:
1452:
1451:
1445:
1443:14 March 2005
1439:
1438:
1432:
1430:21 March 2005
1426:
1425:
1419:
1417:28 March 2005
1413:
1412:
1406:
1400:
1399:
1393:
1391:11 April 2005
1387:
1386:
1380:
1378:18 April 2005
1374:
1373:
1367:
1365:25 April 2005
1361:
1360:
1354:
1348:
1347:
1341:
1335:
1334:
1328:
1322:
1321:
1315:
1309:
1308:
1302:
1296:
1295:
1289:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1280:Time Magazine
1273:
1267:
1266:
1260:
1254:
1253:
1247:
1241:
1240:
1234:
1228:
1227:
1221:
1215:
1214:
1208:
1202:
1201:
1195:
1189:
1188:
1182:
1176:
1175:
1169:
1163:
1162:
1156:
1150:
1149:
1143:
1137:
1136:
1130:
1124:
1123:
1117:
1111:
1110:
1104:
1098:
1097:
1091:
1085:
1084:
1078:
1072:
1071:
1065:
1059:
1058:
1052:
1046:
1045:
1039:
1033:
1032:
1026:
1020:
1019:
1013:
1007:
1006:
1000:
994:
993:
987:
981:
980:
974:
968:
967:
961:
955:
954:
948:
942:
941:
935:
929:
928:
922:
916:
915:
909:
903:
902:
896:
890:
889:
883:
877:
876:
870:
864:
863:
857:
855:23 April 2007
851:
850:
844:
838:
837:
831:
825:
824:
818:
812:
811:
805:
799:
798:
792:
786:
785:
779:
773:
772:
766:
760:
759:
753:
747:
746:
740:
738:30 April 2012
734:
733:
727:
721:
720:
714:
708:
707:
701:
695:
694:
688:
682:
681:
675:
669:
668:
662:
656:
655:
649:
647:31 March 2019
643:
642:
641:
634:
628:
627:
621:
619:27 March 2022
615:
614:
608:
606:1 August 2022
602:
601:
594:
591:
590:
589:
588:More articles
583:
582:
579:
576:
570:
569:
563:
561:1 August 2023
557:
556:
555:
548:
546:1 August 2023
542:
541:
535:
529:
528:
522:
516:
515:
486:
485:(see below).
481:
471:
464:
460:
459:RetractionBot
456:
452:
447:
445:
441:
440:
434:
430:
426:
421:
419:
418:
413:
409:
405:
404:
399:
398:
393:
389:
384:
382:
375:
368:
364:
360:
356:
352:
348:
335:
332:
326:
325:
319:
313:
312:
305:
302:
301:
300:
299:More articles
294:
293:
290:
287:
281:
280:
274:
272:31 March 2019
268:
267:
266:
259:
253:
252:
246:
244:1 August 2023
240:
239:
233:
227:
226:
197:
190:
182:
172:
164:
162:
154:
152:
144:
142:
134:
132:
124:
122:
114:
112:
104:
103:
95:
71:Pi.1415926535
59:
51:
46:
37:
23:
19:
2386:The Signpost
2385:
2354:Innisfree987
2314:
2312:
2191:
2187:
2147:
2139:
2121:
2117:
2109:
2103:publication.
2101:
2086:, after all.
2075:
2063:
1977:
1890:
1861:In the media
1839:all comments
1791:
1766:
1730:
1709:
1695:
1657:
1653:
1619:
1617:
1589:
1551:
1547:
1532:
1509:
1505:
1490:
1471:
1456:7 March 2005
1454:
1448:
1441:
1435:
1428:
1422:
1415:
1409:
1404:4 April 2005
1402:
1396:
1389:
1383:
1376:
1370:
1363:
1357:
1350:
1344:
1337:
1331:
1324:
1318:
1311:
1305:
1298:
1292:
1285:
1279:
1276:
1269:
1263:
1258:13 June 2005
1256:
1250:
1245:20 June 2005
1243:
1237:
1232:11 July 2005
1230:
1224:
1219:25 July 2005
1217:
1211:
1204:
1198:
1191:
1185:
1178:
1172:
1165:
1159:
1152:
1146:
1139:
1133:
1126:
1120:
1113:
1107:
1100:
1094:
1087:
1081:
1074:
1068:
1061:
1055:
1048:
1042:
1035:
1029:
1022:
1016:
1009:
1003:
996:
990:
983:
977:
970:
964:
957:
951:
944:
938:
931:
925:
920:19 June 2006
918:
912:
905:
899:
892:
886:
879:
873:
866:
860:
853:
847:
840:
834:
827:
821:
816:13 July 2009
814:
808:
801:
795:
788:
782:
775:
769:
764:25 July 2011
762:
756:
749:
743:
736:
730:
723:
717:
712:19 June 2013
710:
704:
697:
691:
684:
678:
671:
665:
658:
652:
645:
639:
637:
630:
624:
617:
611:
604:
598:
597:
587:
586:
585:
572:
566:
559:
553:
551:
544:
538:
531:
525:
518:
512:
511:
448:
438:
422:
415:
410:to code the
401:
395:
385:
365:queried the
347:Back in 2012
345:
330:2 April 2007
328:
322:
317:26 June 2008
315:
309:
308:
298:
297:
296:
283:
277:
270:
264:
262:
255:
249:
242:
236:
229:
223:
222:
195:
111:PDF download
74:CC BY-SA 4.0
2424:Suggestions
2144:User:Pi bot
1933:transcluded
1833:8 June 2024
1326:16 May 2005
1313:23 May 2005
1300:30 May 2005
1287:30 May 2005
1271:6 June 2005
907:3 July 2006
520:8 June 2024
406:. This led
231:8 June 2024
218:reliability
161:X (Twitter)
57:8 June 2024
2249:Tom Morris
2196:Tom Morris
2146:deal with
2126:Tom Morris
1960:Ganesha811
1352:2 May 2005
1339:9 May 2005
408:Samwalton9
99:Share this
94:Contribute
22:2024-06-08
2418:Subscribe
1978:currently
1937:talk page
1744:retracted
1736:retracted
1728:instead.
1719:retracted
1635:retracted
1627:retracted
1606:retracted
1598:retracted
507:citations
480:retracted
451:WP:BOTREQ
392:JenOttawa
374:retracted
351:Doc James
2436:Category
2413:Newsroom
2408:Archives
2315:like you
2280:Headbomb
2212:Headbomb
2161:Headbomb
2122:strongly
2072:abstract
2026:Headbomb
1983:Headbomb
1802:Previous
1732:replace
1691:30698268
1673:29694594
1620:like you
1585:30698268
1567:29694594
1525:29694594
425:Elsevier
386:Then in
181:Headbomb
151:Facebook
141:LinkedIn
131:Mastodon
20: |
2368:Frostly
2338:FeRDNYC
2324:FeRDNYC
2313:humans
2261:Mdann52
1911:Concept
1871:Opinion
1772:erratum
1648:1.
1542:1.
1500:1.
455:mdann52
429:Hindawi
2275:WT:MED
1906:Humour
1787:errata
1754:|...}}
1738:|...}}
1629:|...}}
1600:|...}}
367:PubMed
171:Reddit
121:E-mail
2403:About
2150:(see
1901:Comix
1886:Essay
1756:with
1740:with
1631:with
1602:with
1486:PMIDs
16:<
2398:Home
2372:talk
2358:talk
2342:talk
2328:talk
2322:. →
2265:talk
2200:talk
2158:).
2154:and
2152:BRFA
2130:talk
2076:does
1972:See
1964:talk
1810:Next
1777:and
1748:(or
1688:PMID
1670:PMID
1582:PMID
1564:PMID
1522:PMID
1484:and
1482:DOIs
1478:here
1474:.csv
433:SAGE
388:2018
2318:to
2277:.
2188:are
2118:how
1693:,
1680:doi
1662:doi
1587:,
1574:doi
1556:doi
1533:to
1514:doi
179:By
96:—
80:400
2438::
2374:)
2360:)
2344:)
2330:)
2294:·
2290:·
2286:·
2267:)
2226:·
2222:·
2218:·
2202:)
2175:·
2171:·
2167:·
2132:)
2040:·
2036:·
2032:·
1997:·
1993:·
1989:·
1966:)
1800:←
1781:/
1775:}}
1769:{{
1758:{{
1750:{{
1742:{{
1734:{{
1722:}}
1716:{{
1686:,
1668:.
1658:23
1656:.
1633:{{
1625:{{
1604:{{
1596:{{
1580:,
1562:.
1552:23
1550:.
1520:.
1510:23
1508:.
483:}}
477:{{
473:}}
467:{{
453:,
431:,
427:,
390:,
377:}}
371:{{
349:,
77:50
2392:.
2370:(
2356:(
2340:(
2326:(
2298:}
2296:b
2292:p
2288:c
2284:t
2282:{
2263:(
2246:)
2242:(
2230:}
2228:b
2224:p
2220:c
2216:t
2214:{
2198:(
2179:}
2177:b
2173:p
2169:c
2165:t
2163:{
2128:(
2044:}
2042:b
2038:p
2034:c
2030:t
2028:{
2013:—
2001:}
1999:b
1995:p
1991:c
1987:t
1985:{
1962:(
1954:.
1944:.
1841:)
1837:(
1699:)
1682::
1675:.
1664::
1612:)
1610:.
1576::
1569:.
1558::
1527:.
1516::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
