Improve article 1303.6051

[xtalb]

The whole paper is based on data falsification ! See at PubPeer and at the Crystallography Horror Museum : http://cristal.org/CHM/CHM.html#18

[dginev]

@xtalb are you suggesting this paper should be removed from ar5iv?

[xtalb]

This paper should (will) be retracted soon. Whole story here : http://www.cristal.org/Mesli-et-al.pdfAny chemist can see that Fe-F interatomic distance set at <1 angstrom is insane.They have transformed my neutron experimental data presented in Q(Anstrom-1)into radial distribution function in R. This is simply crazy. If you were a specialistin radiation diffusion by glasses you would see that immediately.Do what you want.Best,Armel Le Bailenvoyé : 28 avril 2024 à 19:26de : Deyan Ginev ***@***.***>à : dginev/ar5iv ***@***.***>cc : xtalb ***@***.***>, Mention ***@***.***>objet : Re: [dginev/ar5iv] Improve article 1303.6051 (Issue ***@***.*** are you suggesting this paper should be removed from ar5iv?—Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[dginev]

@xtalb until now there have been a very small number of requests (about 4) for removals from ar5iv, all of which from the papers' authors.

I understand the concern, and the situation sounds very unpleasant.

For other retractions from arXiv (there are actually quite a number for the entire corpus), when the sources are retracted from the main site, and I update the ar5iv sources on my end, the article disappears on the next major conversion. I just did such an update on February 22, so any article retracted before that date should already be gone from ar5iv.

I will leave the issue open, feel free to ping it again when the arxiv.org retraction happens. You really want a retraction in the main site here, as they are the primary "source of truth", ar5iv is basically just an HTML mirror.

Thanks for the report and I am sorry you're dealing with this!