It’s been another exciting year for us at Retraction Watch. As always, there has been more to cover than we have time for. At the same time, we’ve expanded our efforts in other media, telling bigger stories and offering more analysis. And we’ve made major progress on our database — more on that in a moment.
A sampling of what happened this year:
- We launched The Retraction Watch Daily, a digest of our posts from the previous day, and a sneak peek at some of our Weekend Reads. (You haven’t signed up yet? Click here, we’ll wait.)
- We published our 3,000th post.
- Our work was profiled by CBC’s The National.
- We helped to organize two meetings on scientific integrity, with Friends of the National Library of Medicine and Colorado State University, and spoke at both meetings.
- We began a partnership with Science, to contribute in-depth investigations and other pieces to their news section. Here’s an example, about a case at Duke involving hundreds of millions of dollars in grants.
- Thanks to the support of the Helmsley Trust, we completed a strategic planning process. Stay tuned in 2017 as we begin to implement parts of the resulting plan.
- We published a piece in Nautilus on fake authorship. We had fun with this one — as did many of the people involved in the phenomenon, which included an fictional character from a hit television show.
And now, a sneak peek at something we know a lot of readers have been eagerly awaiting (as have we!): Our retraction database, being built with the generous support of the MacArthur and Arnold Foundations. It’s still a work in progress; we have a lot more retractions to enter, and we’ll be fixing bugs and adding functionality, but go to retractiondatabase.org for a taste. You can search by country, author, DOI, reason for retraction, journal, and many more criteria. As always, we welcome your feedback.
Now, some numbers:
- Cumulative page views since our launch in August 2010: More than 25 million
- Subscribers to our email alerts: More than 13,000
- Facebook likes: More than 20,000
- Twitter followers: More than 16,000
And the numbers we’re most grateful for: More than 70 individual donors made gifts to The Center For Scientific Integrity, totaling more than $12,000. That unrestricted funding will allow us to grow even more in 2016. It’s not too late to make an end-of-year tax-deductible donation, either. Here’s how.
As we say frequently, but not often enough, we couldn’t have done any of this without our readers — including our critics — and our fantastic, dedicated staff. Thank you, and all the best in 2017!
Like Retraction Watch? Consider making a tax-deductible contribution to support our growth. You can also follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, sign up on our homepage for an email every time there’s a new post, or subscribe to our daily digest. Click here to review our Comments Policy. For a sneak peek at what we’re working on, click here.