Retraction Watch

Retraction Watch

Retraction Watch is a blog that reports on retractions of scientific papers. It was founded in 2010 by science writers Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus. The blog aims to increase transparency in the scientific process by highlighting cases where research papers are retracted due to errors, misconduct, or other issues.

History

Retraction Watch was launched in August 2010. The founders, Oransky and Marcus, were motivated by a desire to bring attention to the issue of scientific retractions, which they felt were not adequately covered by the mainstream media. The blog quickly gained attention for its detailed reporting on retractions and its role in promoting accountability in scientific publishing.

Purpose and Impact

The primary purpose of Retraction Watch is to provide a comprehensive and accessible database of retracted papers. By doing so, it helps researchers, institutions, and the public understand the reasons behind retractions and the impact they have on the scientific community.

Retraction Watch has been credited with raising awareness about the prevalence of scientific misconduct and the importance of maintaining integrity in research. It has also influenced policy changes in how journals and institutions handle retractions.

Retraction Database

In addition to the blog, Retraction Watch maintains a database of retracted papers. This database is a valuable resource for researchers and institutions, providing detailed information about each retraction, including the reasons for retraction and the parties involved.

Funding and Support

Retraction Watch is supported by grants and donations from various organizations and individuals. It has received funding from the MacArthur Foundation, the Arnold Foundation, and other philanthropic entities. The blog operates as part of the Center for Scientific Integrity, a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting transparency and integrity in science.

Criticism and Challenges

While Retraction Watch has been praised for its contributions to scientific transparency, it has also faced criticism. Some argue that the blog can be overly critical and may damage the reputations of researchers involved in retractions. Others have raised concerns about the potential for bias in its reporting.

Despite these challenges, Retraction Watch continues to be a respected source of information on scientific retractions and a catalyst for discussions about research integrity.

Also see

• Scientific Misconduct
• Peer Review
• Open Access
• Research Integrity