Birdwatch Archive - Rating Details

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-09-21 09:27:14 UTC - SOMEWHAT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 4CB89C309D4B076B17BFFAC6CDBDF6C258EA9562AFEF455E0096144CC63A298F
Participant Details

Original Note:

This lawsuit was filled for : - Peer reviewing as an unpaid job. - Prevent submission to more than one journal. - Prevent sharing while reviewing. While the author's article retraction was for Inappropriate citation of references and methodology, Errors, misrepresentation. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0379073824001968

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

noteId - 1837409149459611920
participantId -
raterParticipantId - 4CB89C309D4B076B17BFFAC6CDBDF6C258EA9562AFEF455E0096144CC63A298F
createdAtMillis - 1726910834002
version - 2
agree - 0
disagree - 0
helpful - 0
notHelpful - 0
helpfulnessLevel - SOMEWHAT_HELPFUL
helpfulOther - 0
helpfulInformative - 0
helpfulClear - 1
helpfulEmpathetic - 0
helpfulGoodSources - 0
helpfulUniqueContext - 0
helpfulAddressesClaim - 0
helpfulImportantContext - 0
helpfulUnbiasedLanguage - 1
notHelpfulOther - 0
notHelpfulIncorrect - 0
notHelpfulSourcesMissingOrUnreliable - 0
notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 1
notHelpfulOutdated - 0
notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 1
ratingsId - 18374091494596119204CB89C309D4B076B17BFFAC6CDBDF6C258EA9562AFEF455E0096144CC63A298F