Editing Retraction Watch

{{Wikipedia fork
| article_name = Retraction Watch
}}
{{Short description|Blog covering scientific paper retractions}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=January 2022}}
{{Infobox website
| name = ''Retraction Watch''
| logo = Retraction Watch logo.webp
| screenshot = 
| collapsible = 
| collapsetext = 
| caption = 
| url = {{official URL}}
| alexa = 
| commercial = No
| type = [[Blog]]
| language = English
| registration = 
| owner = Center for Scientific Integrity
| author = 
| launch_date = August 2010
| current_status = 
| revenue = 
| content_license = 
}}

'''Retraction Watch''' is a [[blog]] that reports on [[retractions in academic publishing|retraction]]s of [[scientific papers]] and on related topics.<ref name="cbc">{{cite news | publisher = [[CBC News]] | first = Stephen | last = Strauss | title = Searching for truth in published research | url = https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/searching-for-truth-in-published-research-1.998697 | date = April 7, 2011 }}</ref> The blog was launched in August 2010<ref name="cmaj">{{cite journal | author = Collier R | title =Shedding light on retractions. | year = 2011 | journal = CMAJ | volume = 183 | issue = 7 | pages = E385-6 | doi = 10.1503/cmaj.109-3827 | pmc = 3080553 | pmid = 21444620}}</ref> and is produced by science writers [[Ivan Oransky]] (Former Vice President, Editorial ''[[Medscape]]'')<ref>[https://retractionwatch.com/meet-the-retraction-watch-staff/about/ Ivan Oransky Bio on ''Retraction Watch''] Retrieved February 5, 2015.</ref> and Adam Marcus (editor of ''Gastroenterology & Endoscopy News'').<ref>[https://retractionwatch.com/about-adam-marcus// Adam Marcus Bio on ''Retraction Watch''] Retrieved February 5, 2015.</ref> Its parent organization is the Center for Scientific Integrity, a US [[501(c)(3)]] nonprofit organization.

== Motivation and scope ==

In 2011, Oransky and Marcus pointed out in ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'' that the [[peer review]] process for scholarly publications continues long after the publication date.<ref>{{cite journal| url = https://www.nature.com/articles/480449a | title = The paper is not sacred | journal = Nature | date = 21 December 2011 | first1 = Adam | last1 = Marcus | first2 = Ivan | last2 = Oransky | volume = 480 | pages=449–450 |year = 2011| issue = 7378 | doi = 10.1038/480449a | pmid = 22193084 }}</ref> They were motivated to launch ''Retraction Watch'' to encourage this continuation and to increase the transparency of the retraction process.<ref name="cjr"/> They observed that retractions of papers generally are not announced, that the reasons for retractions are not publicized, and that other researchers or the public who are unaware of the retraction may make decisions based on invalid results.<ref name="cjr">{{cite web | work = [[Columbia Journalism Review]] | title = Retraction Action | url = https://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/retraction_action.php | first = Craig | last = Silverman | access-date = October 25, 2011 | date = August 9, 2010}}</ref> Oransky described an example of a paper published in ''[[Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]]'' that reported a potential role for a drug against some types of [[breast cancer]]s. Although the paper was later retracted, its retraction was not reported in media outlets that had earlier reported its positive conclusions, with a company having been established on the basis of the ultimately retracted conclusions.<ref name=OakesABSW>Kelly Oakes, [http://www.absw.org.uk/news-events/features/815-helping-journalists-track-retractions-one-year-of-retraction-watch Helping journalists track retractions: one year of Retraction Watch] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120419160633/http://www.absw.org.uk/news-events/features/815-helping-journalists-track-retractions-one-year-of-retraction-watch |date=April 19, 2012 }}, Association of British Science Writers, August 20, 2011.</ref>

Oransky and Marcus claim that retractions also provide a window into the self-correcting nature of science, can provide insight into cases of [[scientific fraud]], and can "be the source of great stories that say a lot about how science is conducted".<ref name=OakesABSW/><ref name="why">{{cite web | publisher = Retraction Watch | url =https://retractionwatch.com/2010/08/03/why-write-a-blog-about-retractions/ | title = Why write a blog about retractions? | first = Ivan | last = Oransky |author2=Adam Marcus  | date = August 3, 2010 | access-date = October 25, 2011}}</ref> In January 2021, more than 50 studies have cited Retraction Watch as the scientific publishing community is exploring the impact of retracted papers.<ref>{{cite web |title=Papers that cite Retraction Watch |url=https://retractionwatch.com/papers-that-cite-retraction-watch/ |website=Retraction Watch |date=March 28, 2020 |access-date=January 13, 2021}}</ref>  During the [[COVID-19 pandemic]], Retraction Watch maintained a separate list of retracted articles that added to [[Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic|misinformation]] about the pandemic,<ref>{{cite web |title=Retracted coronavirus (COVID-19) papers |url=https://retractionwatch.com/retracted-coronavirus-covid-19-papers/ |website=Retraction Watch |date=April 29, 2020 |access-date=January 13, 2021}}</ref> with additional research undertaken to analyse the subsequent pollution of further research as retracted papers are cited and used within scholarly research.<ref name="fid1">{{cite journal |last1=Van Der Walt |first1=Wynand |last2=Willems |first2=Kris |last3=Friedrich |first3=Wernher |last4=Hatsu |first4=Sylvester |last5=Kirstin |first5=Krauss |title=Retracted Covid-19 papers and the levels of 'citation pollution': A preliminary analysis and directions for further research |journal=Cahiers de la Documentation – Bladen voor Documentatie |date=2020 |volume=3 |issue=4 |hdl=10962/167732 |url=http://hdl.handle.net/10962/167732 |access-date=January 13, 2021}}</ref>

In 2023, in the wake of the resignation of [[Stanford University]] president [[Marc Tessier-Lavigne]], Oransky and Marcus co-authored op-eds in ''[[Scientific American]]''<ref>{{cite web| url = https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/science-corrects-itself-right-a-scandal-at-stanford-says-it-doesnt/ | title = Science Corrects Itself, Right? A Scandal at Stanford Says It Doesn't| publisher = Scientific American | date = August 1, 2023 | first1 = Ivan | last1 = Oransky | first2 = Adam | last2 = Marcus}}</ref> and ''[[The Guardian]]''.<ref name="guardian">{{cite web| url = https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/09/scientific-misconduct-retraction-watch | title = There's far more scientific fraud than anyone wants to admit | first1 = Ivan | last1 = Oransky | first2 = Adam | last2 = Marcus | work = The Guardian | date = August 9, 2023}}</ref>  They estimated that scientific misconduct was more common than is reported. They also assessed that, despite recent scandals involving research misconduct, the academic community was not interested in exposing wrongdoing and scientific errors. However, all members of the academic community are responsible for the delays and lack of action.

== 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 = [[New York Times]] | title = 3 Harvard Researchers Retract a Claim on the Aging of Stem Cells | first= Nicholas | last = Wade | author-link = Nicholas Wade | url = https://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/15/science/15retract.html | date = October 14, 2010 | access-date = 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 = [[Ottawa Citizen]] | title = Making science transparent | url = https://ottawacitizen.com/health/Making+science+transparent/5244573/story.html | date = August 12, 2011 | access-date = October 25, 2011}}</ref> In October 2019 the Retraction Watch Database reached a milestone 20,000 entries<ref>{{Cite web |last=Oransky |first=Ivan |date=October 17, 2019 |title=Our database just reached a big milestone: 20,000 retractions. Will you help us with the next 20,000 |url=https://retractionwatch.com/2019/10/17/our-database-has-just-reached-a-big-milestone-20000-retractions-will-you-help-us-with-the-next-20000/ |access-date=September 21, 2020 |website=Retraction Watch |language=en-US}}</ref> As of January 2024, it contains over 50,000 entries.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Retraction Watch Database |url=http://retractiondatabase.org/RetractionSearch.aspx? |access-date=2024-04-06 |website=retractiondatabase.org}}</ref>

== Hijacked journal tracker ==
In 2022, Retraction Watch added a feature that tracks [[journal hijacking]]. Political scientist [[Anna Abalkina]] had developed a method for identifying hijacked journal domains based on an analysis of the archives of clone journals. This method is based on the argument that fraudulent publishers recycle identical papers to create a fictitious archive for a hijacked journal.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Abalkina |first1=Anna |title=Detecting a network of hijacked journals by its archive |journal=Scientometrics |date=August 2021 |volume=126 |issue=8 |pages=7123–7148 |doi=10.1007/s11192-021-04056-0 |arxiv=2101.01224 |s2cid=230523913 |url=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-021-04056-0 |access-date=31 March 2023}}</ref> Methods used to locate or confirm hijacked statuses of journals include duplicated journal archives, identical website templates, growth in indexing, anomalous citations, and scholars’ comments.<ref>{{cite web |title=Methods |url=https://retractionwatch.com/the-retraction-watch-hijacked-journal-checker/methods/ |website=Retraction Watch |date=May 30, 2022 |access-date=31 March 2023}}</ref> Abalkina created the Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker in partnership with Retraction Watch.<ref>{{cite web |title=The Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker |url=https://retractionwatch.com/the-retraction-watch-hijacked-journal-checker/ |website=Retraction Watch |date=May 30, 2022 |access-date=31 March 2023}}</ref>

== 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]].<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.chronicle.com/article/Meet-Retraction-Watch-the/233373 |title=Meet Retraction Watch, the Blog That Points Out the Human Stains on the Scientific Record |last=Kolowich |first=Steve |date=September 25, 2015 |work=The Chronicle of Higher Education |access-date=October 11, 2019 |language=en-US |issn=0009-5982}}</ref> The database of retractions was funded by a $400,000 grant from the MacArthur Foundation in 2015.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.nasw.org/article/sciencewriters-retraction-watch-receives-400000-grant |title=From ScienceWriters: Retraction Watch receives $400,000 grant |website=www.nasw.org |language=en |access-date=October 11, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |title=Chapter 19 - Publishing Ethics: An Interview With the Founders of Retraction Watch |date=January 1, 2018 |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B978012809969800019X |journal=Medical and Scientific Publishing|pages=179–186|editor-last=Markovac|editor-first=Jasna|publisher=Academic Press|doi=10.1016/B978-0-12-809969-8.00019-X|isbn=9780128099698|access-date=October 11, 2019|editor2-last=Kleinman|editor2-first=Molly|editor3-last=Englesbe|editor3-first=Michael}}</ref> 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]].<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://cos.io/about/news/center-open-science-and-center-scientific-integrity-announce-partnership/ |title=Center for Open Science and The Center for Scientific Integrity Announce Partnership |website=cos.io |access-date=October 11, 2019}}</ref>   

== See also ==
* [[PubPeer]]
* [[Replication crisis]]
* [[Center for Open Science]]
* [[Journal hijacking]]

== References ==
{{reflist|colwidth=33em}}

== External links ==
* {{official website}}
* [https://retractionwatch.com/the-center-for-scientific-integrity/ Center for Scientic Integrity]

[[Category:Science blogs]]
[[Category:Medical controversies]]
[[Category:Scientific misconduct]]
[[Category:Media analysis organizations and websites]]
[[Category:Error]]