| Revision as of 18:35, 27 June 2019 edit2604:2000:12c1:3d6:a559:994a:9c49:9137 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:57, 6 August 2019 edit undoNuretok (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,511 edits Added current size of retraction database and mentions in newspapersTag: Visual editNext edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| == Impact == | == Impact == | ||
| Retraction Watch has demonstrated that retractions are more common than was previously thought.<ref name=OakesABSW/> When Retraction Watch was launched, Marcus "wondered if we'd have enough material".<ref name="nyt">{{cite news | work = ] | title = 3 Harvard Researchers Retract a Claim on the Aging of Stem Cells | first= Nicholas | last = Wade | authorlink = Nicholas Wade | url = https://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/15/science/15retract.html | date = October 14, 2010 | accessdate = October 25, 2011}}</ref> It had been estimated that about 80 papers were retracted annually.<ref name=OakesABSW/> However, in its first year, the blog reported on approximately 200 retractions.<ref name="ottawa">{{cite news | work = ] | title = Making science transparent | url = https://ottawacitizen.com/health/Making+science+transparent/5244573/story.html | date = August 12, 2011 | accessdate = October 25, 2011}}</ref> | Retraction Watch has demonstrated that retractions are more common than was previously thought.<ref name=OakesABSW/> When Retraction Watch was launched, Marcus "wondered if we'd have enough material".<ref name="nyt">{{cite news | work = ] | title = 3 Harvard Researchers Retract a Claim on the Aging of Stem Cells | first= Nicholas | last = Wade | authorlink = Nicholas Wade | url = https://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/15/science/15retract.html | date = October 14, 2010 | accessdate = October 25, 2011}}</ref> It had been estimated that about 80 papers were retracted annually.<ref name=OakesABSW/> However, in its first year, the blog reported on approximately 200 retractions.<ref name="ottawa">{{cite news | work = ] | title = Making science transparent | url = https://ottawacitizen.com/health/Making+science+transparent/5244573/story.html | date = August 12, 2011 | accessdate = October 25, 2011}}</ref> As of August 2019 the Retraction Watch Database contains 20820 items.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://retractiondatabase.org/?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1|title=The Retraction Watch Database|last=|first=|date=|website=retractiondatabase.org|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=2019-08-06}}</ref> | ||
| Newspapers such as ]<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/29/academias-seamier-side-lying-cheating-and-fraud/|title=Academia’s seamier side: Lying, cheating and fraud|last=Barbash|first=Fred|date=2014-07-29|work=]|access-date=2019-08-06}}</ref> and ]<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jan/15/bad-science-academic-journal-retraction|title=Now you see it, now you don't: why journals need to rethink retractions|last=Goldacre|first=Ben|date=2011-01-15|work=]|access-date=2019-08-06|language=en-GB|issn=0261-3077|author-link=Ben Goldacre}}</ref> have reported about Retraction Watch. | |||
| == See also == | == See also == | ||
Revision as of 18:57, 6 August 2019
Retraction Watch is a blog that reports on retractions of scientific papers and on related topics. The blog was launched in August 2010 and is produced by science writers Ivan Oransky (Vice President, Editorial Medscape) and Adam Marcus (editor of Gastroenterology & Endoscopy News). Its parent organization is the Center for Scientific Integrity
Scope
Oransky and Marcus were motivated to launch the blog to increase the transparency of the retraction process. They observed that retractions of papers generally are not announced, and the reasons for retractions are not publicized. 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.
The blog argues that retractions provide a window into the self-correcting nature of science, and can provide insight into cases of scientific fraud. 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."
Impact
Retraction Watch has demonstrated that retractions are more common than was previously thought. When Retraction Watch was launched, Marcus "wondered if we'd have enough material". It had been estimated that about 80 papers were retracted annually. However, in its first year, the blog reported on approximately 200 retractions. As of August 2019 the Retraction Watch Database contains 20820 items.
Newspapers such as The Washington Post and The Guardian have reported about Retraction Watch.
See also
References
- Strauss, Stephen (April 7, 2011). "Searching for truth in published research". CBC News. Retrieved October 25, 2011.
- Collier R (2011). "Shedding light on retractions". CMAJ. 183 (7): E385-6. doi:10.1503/cmaj.109-3827. PMC 3080553. PMID 21444620.
- Ivan Oransky Bio on Retraction Watch Retrieved Feb 5, 2015.
- Adam Marcus Bio on Retraction Watch Retrieved Feb 5, 2015.
- ^ Silverman, Craig (August 9, 2010). "Retraction Action". Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved October 25, 2011.
- ^ Kelly Oakes, Helping journalists track retractions: one year of Retraction Watch, Association of British Science Writers, 20 August 2011
- Oransky, Ivan; Adam Marcus (August 3, 2010). "Why write a blog about retractions?". Retraction Watch. Retrieved October 25, 2011.
- Wade, Nicholas (October 14, 2010). "3 Harvard Researchers Retract a Claim on the Aging of Stem Cells". New York Times. Retrieved October 25, 2011.
- "Making science transparent". Ottawa Citizen. August 12, 2011. Retrieved October 25, 2011.
- "The Retraction Watch Database". retractiondatabase.org. Retrieved 2019-08-06.
{{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|dead-url=(help) - Barbash, Fred (2014-07-29). "Academia's seamier side: Lying, cheating and fraud". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2019-08-06.
- 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.