Author: Ivan Oransky

As some Retraction Watch readers have known, we’ve had off-and-on technological issues with the site. At least in some cases, those problems seem to have been due to DDOS attacks. We’ve been taking steps to ensure the site’s reliability, and we’re taking another one.

Since our inception in 2010, we’ve offered a way to receive an email alert about every new post as it is published. We know that for some readers, such alerts are the preferred way to learn of new posts. However, the various ways to do that all create vulnerabilities on the site, which in turn offer bots ways to compromise us.

As a result, we’re phasing out our email per post subscription, the one that you may have signed up for using the “follow” button that appears on the bottom of your screen. At the end of October, we will no longer offer it.

As some Retraction Watch readers have known, we’ve had off-and-on technological issues with the site. At least in some cases, those problems seem to have been due to DDOS attacks. We’ve been taking steps to ensure the site’s reliability, and we’re taking another one.

Since our inception in 2010, we’ve offered a way to receive an email alert about every new post as it is published. We know that for some readers, such alerts are the preferred way to learn of new posts. However, the various ways to do that all create vulnerabilities on the site, which in turn offer bots ways to compromise us.

As a result, we’re phasing out our email per post subscription, the one that you may have signed up for using the “follow” button that appears on the bottom of your screen. At the end of October, we will no longer offer it.

Nicolas Guéguen has a distinction, albeit even if it’s one he probably wishes he didn’t have: The retraction of his paper on whether high heels make women more attractive was the 20,000th retraction in our database. 

That’s right: Earlier this month, the Retraction Watch database — retractionwatchdatabase.org — logged its 20,000th retraction. As our readers may recall, we first announced plans for the database in late 2014 thanks to a grant from the MacArthur Foundation, and officially launched it a year ago with a feature package in Science.

At some 1,400 retractions per year, we were bound to reach this milestone at some point. But it’s worth noting that there were fewer than 40 retractions in 2000, meaning that the pace has accelerated, in turn meaning more work for our own indefatigable researcher,  Alison Abritis, who has made sure — with help at the start by dozens of librarians, grad students and others — that we could keep up.

As some Retraction Watch readers have known, we’ve had off-and-on technological issues with the site. At least in some cases, those problems seem to have been due to DDOS attacks. We’ve been taking steps to ensure the site’s reliability, and we’re taking another one.

Since our inception in 2010, we’ve offered a way to receive an email alert about every new post as it is published. We know that for some readers, such alerts are the preferred way to learn of new posts. However, the various ways to do that all create vulnerabilities on the site, which in turn offer bots ways to compromise us.