The explosion of research on COVID-19 has resulted in an unprecedented pace of publication. Science magazine states that there were more than 23 000 papers published between January and May, 2020, and 4000 papers published in one week in May (https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/scientists-are-drowning-covid-19-papers-can-new-tools-keep-them-afloat). Retractionwatch has given COVID-19 literature its own section (https://retractionwatch.com/retracted-coronavirus-covid-19-papers/). In my paper, I cite critiques published in Proceedings of the National Academy (USA) of a paper published in the same issue by Forster et al (2020, PNAS 117: 9241–9243). The authors involved intend to continue their debate through replies in future publications. I relied on the published critiques and what I now consider to be my partial misreading of Forster et al. This resulted in an incorrect characterization of Forster et al. and my criticism of their paper should be set aside.

COVID-19 研究的爆炸式增长导致了前所未有的出版速度。《科学》杂志称，2020 年 1 月至 5 月期间发表的论文超过 23 000 篇，5 月一周发表论文 4000 篇（https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/scientists-are-drowning -covid-19-papers-can-new-tools-keep-them-afloat）。Retractionwatch 为 COVID-19 文献提供了自己的部分（https://retractionwatch.com/retracted-coronavirus-covid-19-papers/）。在我的论文中，我引用了发表在美国国家科学院院刊上对 Forster 等人 (2020, PNAS 117: 9241–9243) 在同一期发表的一篇论文的评论。参与的作者打算通过在未来出版物中的回复来继续他们的辩论。我依赖于已发表的评论以及我现在认为是我对 Forster 等人的部分误读。这导致了 Forster 等人的错误表征。我对他们论文的批评应该搁置一旁。