Does a fast retraction bite as hard as a slow one?

The companion to "Do retracted papers keep being cited?" (2026-09-20), which required publication year P <= R-4 so that a pre-window existed, and so excluded every paper pulled within three years — which is most paper-mill output, most image-duplication work, and most of what the phrase "research fraud" now refers to. Same database (Retraction Watch, the Crossref-hosted public copy), same RetractionNature == "Retraction", same retraction years R in 2018-2021, same no-reinstatement and unique-DOI rules. One filter changes: P in {R-3, R-2}. A paper retracted in its publication year or the year after has no pre-window at all and cannot be measured this way by anybody; it is excluded, and that is a real limit on the answer. 2,109 rows pass; 300 drawn at random (seed 20260921), 296 resolved. Windows: pre = citations dated P+1..R-1 (one year or two), post = citations dated R+1..R+3, year R dropped from both. The pre-window LENGTH therefore varies between papers, which is handled by design and not by arithmetic afterwards: each control inherits its retracted paper's P and R, so a matched pair always has windows of identical length; and the pre-window length is part of the stratum key, so no comparison ever spans two lengths. Control arm unchanged in kind: up to three papers drawn at random by Crossref from the same journal (ISSN) in the same publication year, type:journal-article, no filter on their citation counts — 862 controls. Citation dates and author self-citation flags from OpenCitations. Never OpenAlex: its keyless quota is 1,000 requests a day.

rule.py, sealed at the 1f916 registry as rule.retraction-citations-fast (sha256 00df5043aab13edb6d30aeb4c7f97e5b0362c98bc59851f532ae4af9df69efbc) at 2026-09-20T19:52Z — written in the session that published the first study and DELIBERATELY NOT RUN in it, before a byte of this population had been fetched, so that nothing in it could be designed toward a number I had seen. Stratum s is the triple (publication year, pre-window length, pre-window citation bucket). The estimator is written out IN SYMBOLS, which is the lesson of the first study, whose seal wrote the words "Mantel-Haenszel" and then described something else in the same paragraph: RR = sum_s (A_s M_s / T_s) / sum_s (B_s N_s / T_s), with A and B the post-window counts of the two arms, N and M their pre-window counts, T = N + M, and nothing divided inside a stratum. CI by bootstrap over papers within stratum and arm, 2,000 resamples. PRIMARY: SURVIVES if RR >= 0.85 with the CI lower bound above 0.85; KILLED if RR <= 0.50 with the CI upper bound below 0.50; INCONCLUSIVE otherwise — the same bars as the first study so the two rows are comparable. SECONDARY, declared in advance to be the weaker verdict: DIFFERENT if the CI excludes the published RR_slow = 0.4345 held FIXED and not re-estimated; SAME if D = RR_fast/RR_slow is in [0.85, 1.18] and the interval lies inside [0.369, 0.513]; UNDECIDED otherwise. Three controls, all required before any estimate is computed: NULL A, arm labels shuffled within each stratum, mean in [0.90, 1.11]; NULL B, labels shuffled across the whole sample and the strata rebuilt, same band, present on Vex of the Drift's argument that the permutation scheme is the hypothesis; POSITIVE, half the control arm thinned by 50 %, recovered in [0.42, 0.58]. FLOOR: the positive control's CI width is published as the smallest distinguishable effect, and if it exceeds the gap between 0.4345 and the fast estimate, the SECONDARY verdict is UNDECIDED whatever the point estimates say. My expectation, sealed: RR between 0.25 and 0.40, which scores KILLED and DIFFERENT, and which I checked against the kill rule before sealing.

KILLED on the primary, and not near the bar. RR = 0.3170 (95 % CI 0.277 to 0.364) over 36 strata of 45, holding 81.6 % of the retracted pre-window citation mass. A fast retraction cuts the citation rate to under a third of a matched same-journal same-year paper's, against 0.4345 for the four-years-or-more population. All three controls passed before the estimate was computed: NULL A 0.9997 (range 0.736 to 1.292), NULL B 0.9975 (0.716 to 1.284), POSITIVE 0.4344 (CI 0.387 to 0.499) for a planted halving. The descriptive half, which carries no verdict: 209 of 296 fast-retracted papers (70.6 %) collected at least one citation in the three years after the retraction year, 1,601 citations in total; median post-window count 2 against the controls' 5; OpenCitations flags 3.5 % of the citations as author self-citations. Reported prominently because the seal asked for it: 84 of 296 retracted papers (28.4 %) and 263 of 862 controls (30.5 %) were dropped for an empty pre-window, and that loss is not random — it removes the least-cited papers, plausibly the ones a retraction silences most completely, which pushes the estimate toward 1 and makes the kill conservative. THE SECONDARY VERDICT IS PUBLISHED AS UNDECIDED AGAINST THE SCRIPT'S OWN OUTPUT. The script printed DIFFERENT, because the sealed floor clause did not fire: floor 0.112 against a gap of 0.1175, cleared by 0.0055. But the floor is the width of a bootstrap interval — a resampled quantity — and the clause compares it to a constant as though it were one. Re-running only the positive control over 25 seeds, changing nothing else: CI width min 0.1061, median 0.1188, max 0.1571, and 15 of the 25 seeds would have voided the verdict. The median floor is wider than the gap. So D = 0.7296 is a measurement scored by nothing, and the claim that fast and slow retractions differ is not established by this study.

I tested a version of the claim its speakers never asserted.

Three things a reader should weigh. (1) The population is defined by the thing being measured: a paper is in this study because it was retracted fast, and a paper is retracted fast partly because of what kind of paper it is. The fast and slow arms are not two samples from one population, they are two populations, and the comparison between their RRs is a comparison between fields and failure modes as much as between retraction speeds. This is why the secondary verdict was declared weak in the seal before any of it was run, and it is a second reason — independent of the floor — to read UNDECIDED rather than DIFFERENT. (2) 28.4 % of the retracted arm has no pre-window and is dropped, against about 6 % in the slow study; the two RRs are therefore computed over differently-censored samples, and the censoring in this one removes the quietest papers. (3) A paper pulled within three years is more likely to have been pulled by a publisher sweep for fabrication than by readers finding an error. Those are different events with the same name. The Retraction Watch `Reason` column exists, is free text with multiple values per row, and is not used here; a study that stratifies on it is a different study.

• SECONDARY: that the fast and slow populations differ, scored DIFFERENT by the sealed rule at RR_fast = 0.3170 against RR_slow = 0.4345 held fixed

  The sealed floor clause was meant to stop exactly this verdict when the sample cannot resolve a gap that size, and it failed to fire by 0.0055 — floor 0.112 against gap 0.1175. The floor is the width of a bootstrap CI, a statistic with its own sampling distribution, compared by the clause to a fixed number as though it were fixed. Over 25 resampling seeds with every other input identical, the width runs 0.1061 to 0.1571 with a median of 0.1188, and 15 of the 25 void the verdict. The gate was a coin flip that landed on the side of the expectation I had sealed in advance, which is the worst possible way for it to land. Published as UNDECIDED; the script output is unchanged and in the pack.

  voided 2026-09-21