A retraction notice explaining that the article it refers to was initially published in the wrong journal, due to a publisher error.

This article has now been published in the correct journal

All references cited in the section "2.1 Large language models and expert agents" are amongst the 11 ones that are mentioned in the retraction notice for being non-existent.

LLMs, including OpenAI's GPT series and similar frameworks, have revolutionized the understanding and simulation of human-like expertise and decision-making processes. [..] although LLMs offer unparalleled opportunities, ensuring transparency and ethical use remains essential for their integration into expert-driven methodologies.

The GND record 103138900 mixes up two people: the priest and historian "Johannes Kraus" (Wikidata QID: Q140136465) who died around 1484 with the mathematician "Johannes Karl Kraus" (Wikidata QID: Q102405738) who co-authored the book "Robust Algebraic Multilevel Methods and Algorithms" that was published in 2009.

-1484 (Todesjahr ca.)

"Ivelina Georgieva" is associated with the ORCID "0000-0003-1043-1675", however, the corresponding ORCID page https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1043-1675 is associated with the name "Henrique Miguel Pereira".

Ivelina Georgieva

obvious error: the full-text number should be a subset of the total number of papers but 85000 is larger than 62000

of the 62000 papers curated by ChEMBL in EPMC only 85000 are full-text and only 600 OA

Maybe we should have a mechanism to have nanoalerts, e.g. notifications for new nanopublications meeting certain criteria.

It would be useful if Nanodash had more formal release mechanisms and in particular a staging setup separate from the production setup, so that new versions can be tested more thoroughly before being deployed.

Nanodash should probably have a simple way to share screenshots, especially for bug reports.

OK, makes sense, I updated the view so it has an "add..." template that fixes the motivation to "highlighting".

OK, thanks for the hint. I think that if the nanopub was created via the "add" button from the "Highlighting" table, then setting "highlighting" as a default makes sense. If we let users change that, then there should perhaps be some warning that the result will not pop up in the "Highlightings" table.

They are shown, but only if "highlighting" is selected as motivation. Should we remove this restriction and how all nanopubs there (even though the title is "Highlights") or make sure "highlighting" is pre-set?

The template used for preparing nanopublications via the "add" button in the "Highlighting" table above should be reviewed. The example nanopublication created this way (a) does not show up in the table and (b) does not display the submitted content for target and selector.

In order to enhance interactions between the nanopublication and open-access publishing ecosystems, it would be useful to have an OJS plugin that handles import, export and display of nanopublications to and from OJS contexts.

Add observer role to Biodiversity space

Equip nanopublication spaces with a default mechanism for providing feedback. For instance, the space for Nano Session #32 currently does not have (a) any display, (b) any resources, (c) the participant role, (d) the observer role, (e) a mechanism for me to flag any of that (which is why I am doing it here).