Retraction Watch

Retraction Watch is a blog that reports on retractions of scientific papers and on related topics.[1] The blog was launched in August 2010[2] and is produced by science writers Ivan Oransky (Vice President, Editorial Medscape)[3] and Adam Marcus (editor of Gastroenterology & Endoscopy News).[4] Its parent organization is the Center for Scientific Integrity.

Retraction Watch
Type of site
Blog
Available inEnglish
OwnerCenter for Scientific Integrity
URLretractionwatch.com
CommercialNo
Launched2010

Scope

Oransky and Marcus were motivated to launch the blog to increase the transparency of the retraction process.[5] They observed that retractions of papers generally are not announced, and the reasons for retractions are not publicized.[5] One result is that other researchers or the public who are unaware of the retraction may make decisions based on invalid results. Oransky describes an example of a paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that reported that a certain molecule could cause some types of breast cancers to respond to a drug that would otherwise be ineffective. Although the paper was retracted, its retraction was not reported in the media outlets that had reported on its conclusions, and before it was retracted a company had been established to make use of the reported discovery.[6]

The blog argues that retractions provide a window into the self-correcting nature of science, and can provide insight into cases of scientific fraud.[7] Its operators say that as science journalists, they have "found retractions to be the source of great stories that say a lot about how science is conducted."[6]

Impact

Retraction Watch has demonstrated that retractions are more common than was previously thought.[6] When Retraction Watch was launched, Marcus "wondered if we'd have enough material".[8] It had been estimated that about 80 papers were retracted annually.[6] However, in its first year, the blog reported on approximately 200 retractions.[9] As of January 2020 the Retraction Watch Database contains 21792 items.[10]

Newspapers such as The Washington Post[11] and The Guardian[12] have reported about Retraction Watch.

Funding

Retraction watch has been funded by a variety of sources, including donations and grants. They received grants from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Helmsley Charitable Trust, and the Laura and John Arnold Foundation.[13] The database of retractions was funded by a 400,000 dollar grant from the MacArthur Foundation received in 2015.[14][15] They have partnered with the Center for Open Science, which is also funded by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, to create a retraction database on the Open Science Framework.[16]   

gollark: If you can give them physical objects, it is very easy, since you can just write "this is the front", "this is the right", and so on.
gollark: The screens might not be built the same way round. You seem to be missing the point.
gollark: There is no guarantee that their screens and rendering stuff do LTR like ours.
gollark: Android has a built-in sound to text transcriber now, so just use that.
gollark: Try hearing better.

See also

References
  1. Strauss, Stephen (April 7, 2011). "Searching for truth in published research". CBC News.
  2. Collier R (2011). "Shedding light on retractions". CMAJ. 183 (7): E385-6. doi:10.1503/cmaj.109-3827. PMC 3080553. PMID 21444620.
  3. Ivan Oransky Bio on Retraction Watch Retrieved Feb 5, 2015.
  4. Adam Marcus Bio on Retraction Watch Retrieved Feb 5, 2015.
  5. Silverman, Craig (August 9, 2010). "Retraction Action". Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved October 25, 2011.
  6. Kelly Oakes, Helping journalists track retractions: one year of Retraction Watch, Association of British Science Writers, 20 August 2011
  7. Oransky, Ivan; Adam Marcus (August 3, 2010). "Why write a blog about retractions?". Retraction Watch. Retrieved October 25, 2011.
  8. Wade, Nicholas (October 14, 2010). "3 Harvard Researchers Retract a Claim on the Aging of Stem Cells". New York Times. Retrieved October 25, 2011.
  9. "Making science transparent". Ottawa Citizen. August 12, 2011. Retrieved October 25, 2011.
  10. "The Retraction Watch Database". retractiondatabase.org. Retrieved 2019-08-06.
  11. Barbash, Fred (2014-07-29). "Academia's seamier side: Lying, cheating and fraud". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2019-08-06.
  12. Goldacre, Ben (2011-01-15). "Now you see it, now you don't: why journals need to rethink retractions". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2019-08-06.
  13. Kolowich, Steve (2015-09-25). "Meet Retraction Watch, the Blog That Points Out the Human Stains on the Scientific Record". The Chronicle of Higher Education. ISSN 0009-5982. Retrieved 2019-10-11.
  14. "From ScienceWriters: Retraction Watch receives $400,000 grant". www.nasw.org. Retrieved 2019-10-11.
  15. Markovac, Jasna; Kleinman, Molly; Englesbe, Michael, eds. (2018-01-01), "Chapter 19 - Publishing Ethics: An Interview With the Founders of Retraction Watch", Medical and Scientific Publishing, Academic Press, pp. 179–186, ISBN 9780128099698, retrieved 2019-10-11
  16. "Center for Open Science and The Center for Scientific Integrity Announce Partnership". cos.io. Retrieved 2019-10-11.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.