[probably_wrong]

I've thinking how to make this idea work, but the more I think about it the less I think it's viable.

First, you would be centralizing the ability to "cancel" papers. One bad member of the board could wreak havok. Simultaneously, people in charge of the database would be constantly bombarded by pleas (not all of them honest) to revoke this and that researcher's paper. So it would be bad for both sides.

You could get away with something like Retraction Watch, but you'll always be behind - you could keep track of which papers were retracted (which is already a lot of work), but not every paper that needs to be revised is retracted.

I guess figuring out a perfect system for deciding which ideas are right is hard.

[worldsayshi]

You point out the flaws of one potential implementation of such system and reject the whole concept? I think it's conceivable that there is an implementation of such concept that would work better than not having it.

Example off the top of my head: Don't have one board decide which papers are cancelled. Have multiple. Have git repos with lists of cancelled papers. Have a process for finding which papers are flawed due to citing cancelled papers from a particular paper. Have browser extensions that tells you if the paper you're opening is carrying such flaws. Allow user of such extension to pick which board they trust. Have the extension link to a discussion about why the paper is cancelled. Give ability to challenge such claim in the open. Etc etc.

I'm sure many more such ideas can be found. The problem is probably rather funding of such system or if whoever funds it would have the right incentives to begin with.