Did 2023 feel like a year in which you couldn’t keep up, whether that was your to-do list, the news, or email?
We know the feeling.
Earlier this month, Nature reported that journals retracted more than 10,000 papers this year – so many, in fact, that we have not been able to enter them all into The Retraction Watch Database yet, because each one has to be reviewed by hand. It’s not unusual for us to have to keep working into the following year to catch up, but the volume this year will mean that will all take longer.
The value of that database – 45,000 retractions strong and counting – was the basis for our biggest development this year: Its acquisition by Crossref, in a deal that makes the data fully available for free, and provides us sustainable funding for the database side of our operations. We’re still pinching ourselves about that agreement, and we can’t wait to see just how many scholars, software developers, and others dream up new uses for the data.
The volume of retractions, particularly those that were high-profile, was responsible for another phenomenon you may have noticed in 2023: The mainstream media is all over them. Just do a Google News search and see for yourself. Although that fact means far more competition for scoops, we couldn’t be happier to see interest – rare in 2010 when we launched – flourish. We have, in some ways, transitioned to being a resource for other reporters, as we were in this Harvard Kennedy School Journalists’ Resource webinar. We’re delighted.
We had a few other key accomplishments this year. A sampling:
- Fred Joelving joined us as editor, thanks to a generous grant from the WoodNext Foundation. Take a look at the work he’s produced so far, which is stellar.
- We launched The Retraction Watch Mass Resignations List, which is up to two dozen cases of editorial boards that quit following disagreements with publishers.
- We published invited opinion pieces in The BMJ, The Guardian, and Scientific American. We also wrote for The Chronicle of Higher Education.
- We’ve published investigations and other stories with Undark, Science, STAT, and the Flatwater Free Press (with pickup by Nebraska Public Media).
- A study published in Research Policy “found that reporting retractions on RW significantly reduced post-retraction citations of non-swiftly retracted articles in biomedical sciences.” In other words, when Retraction Watch covers a retraction, the retracted paper is less likely to be cited.
- Our work was cited by or featured in The Boston Globe, The Chronicle of Higher Education, The Economist, Nature, The New York Times, Science Friday, Time, Times Higher Education, Vox, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, WIRED, and elsewhere. And it’s not just those U.S. and UK-based outlets, but also publications in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, The Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hong Kong, India, Israel, Malaysia, The Netherlands, Spain, and elsewhere.
- Peer-reviewed studies continue to cite The Retraction Watch Database, and the blog, regularly.
- We introduced The Retraction Watch Weekly, a way to help unclutter your inbox and support our work.
All of these efforts require resources. If you value our work, please consider a tax-deductible donation to support it. You can make a one-time tax-deductible contribution by PayPal or by Square, or a monthly tax-deductible donation by Paypal. Or if you prefer to send a check, please make it out to The Center For Scientific Integrity and mail it to 121 W. 36th St., Suite 209, New York, NY 10018.
Thank you for all of your support. Happy New Year!
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, subscribe to our free daily digest or paid weekly update, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, or add us to your RSS reader. If you find a retraction that’s not in The Retraction Watch Database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].