Editing Retraction Watch (section)

== 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.