What should an ideal retraction notice look like?

Have you seen our “unhelpful retraction notices” category, a motley collection of vague, misleading, and even information-free entries? We’d like to make it obsolete, and we need our readers’ help. Here’s what we mean: Next month, Ivan will be traveling to Rio to take part in the World Conference on Research Integrity. One of his … Continue reading What should an ideal retraction notice look like?

What should an ideal retraction notice look like? We (and COPE) want your input

Last week, we announced a new partnership with PRE (Peer Review Evaluation) “to improve access to information about retraction policies.” The first step, we and PRE said, was that Retraction Watch would create guidelines for retraction notices, to which PRE’s flagship product, PRE-val, would link. Well, it turns out that great minds think alike, or … Continue reading What should an ideal retraction notice look like? We (and COPE) want your input

Legal threats, opacity, and deceptive research practices: A look at more than 100 retractions in business and management

What can studying retractions in business and management journals tell us? Earlier this year, Dennis Tourish, of the University of Sussex, and Russell Craig, of the University of Portsmouth, both in the UK, published a paper in the Journal of Management Inquiry that analyzed 131 such retractions. The duo — who were also two of … Continue reading Legal threats, opacity, and deceptive research practices: A look at more than 100 retractions in business and management

Retraction Watch Database User Guide Appendix B: Reasons

  Reason Description Author Unresponsive Author(s) lack of communication after prior contact by Journal, Publisher or other original Authors Breach of Policy by Author A violation of the Journal, Publisher or Institutional accepted practices by the author Breach of Policy by Third Party A violation of the Journal, Publisher or Institutional accepted practices by a … Continue reading Retraction Watch Database User Guide Appendix B: Reasons

Retraction Watch readers, we need your help to be able to continue our work

Dear Retraction Watch readers: Have you seen our database of retractions? While we’re still putting finishing touches on it before an official launch, with more than 18,000 retractions, it’s already the most comprehensive collection of retractions anywhere. We have learned a great deal as we’ve gathered those retractions, which we look forward to sharing quite soon, … Continue reading Retraction Watch readers, we need your help to be able to continue our work

Retraction Watch readers, we need your help to be able to continue our work

Dear Retraction Watch readers: Have you seen our database of retractions? While we’re still putting finishing touches on it before an official launch, with more than 18,000 retractions, it’s already the most comprehensive collection of retractions anywhere. We have learned a great deal as we’ve gathered those retractions, which we look forward to sharing quite soon, … Continue reading Retraction Watch readers, we need your help to be able to continue our work

Infighting at journal prompts retraction of editorial “full of misinformation”

An editor thought she did a great job running an anesthesiology journal. But her colleagues— including the new editor who took over for her—heartily disagree. During her tenure at the journal, the outgoing editor penned an editorial taking credit for the journal’s rise to success. But, according to a new commentary published in the journal, … Continue reading Infighting at journal prompts retraction of editorial “full of misinformation”

Caught Our Notice: Forged email for corresponding author dooms diabetes paper

Title: Naringin Alleviates Diabetic Kidney Disease through Inhibiting Oxidative Stress and Inflammatory Reaction What Caught Our Attention: PLOS ONE had a few reasons for retracting a 2015 paper about a treatment for kidney disease due to diabetes: For one, despite what the paper claims, the authors did not obtain ethical approval to conduct the reported … Continue reading Caught Our Notice: Forged email for corresponding author dooms diabetes paper

Caught Our Notice: Climate change leads to more…neurosurgery for polar bears?

Title: Internet Blogs, Polar Bears, and Climate-Change Denial by Proxy What Caught Our Attention: There’s a lot going on here, so bear with us. (Ba-dum-bum.) First, there was the paper itself, co-authored by, among others, Michael Mann and Stephan Lewandowsky. Both names may be familiar to Retraction Watch readers. Mann is a prominent climate scientist … Continue reading Caught Our Notice: Climate change leads to more…neurosurgery for polar bears?

Delays, arguing over upcoming Cell retraction leave first author “devastated”

After being “blindsided” a few months ago when she was told one of her 2005 papers was going to be retracted, a researcher scrambled to get information about why. And when she didn’t like the answers, she took to PubPeer. Eight days ago, Shalon (Babbitt) Ledbetter, the first author of the 2005 paper published in … Continue reading Delays, arguing over upcoming Cell retraction leave first author “devastated”