> Odd that there's no link to the retracted article.
Well, it's retracted. That means that it shouldn't exist any more, so while they could link to the archive, it defeats the point of retracting it if they do so, right?
In academic publishing the normal way to handle a retraction is to flag the article as retracted, not delete it. Partly that's a legacy thing from print media (you can publish a notice of retraction but you can't un-publish a physical journal copy). But it's also about traceability; you don't get to pretend you never messed up by putting the article out in the first place.
Well, it's retracted. That means that it shouldn't exist any more, so while they could link to the archive, it defeats the point of retracting it if they do so, right?