Retraction Watch Staff

Weekend reads: ‘The Temporal Crisis’; researcher sues university that fired him; ‘Devastating Legacy of Lies’

The week at Retraction Watch featured:

More than three decades after misconduct ruling, researcher’s IQ test paper is retracted
‘Foolish mistake’: Guest editor loses three articles published in his own special issues
Researcher alleges group stole thesis data presented at conference
Thousands demand withdrawal of review article recommending exercise therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome
Paper retracted after author told journal study was ‘not actually performed’

Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up past 450. There are more than 55,000 retractions in The Retraction Watch Database — which is now part of Crossref. The Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker now contains more than 300 titles. And have you seen our leaderboard of authors with the most retractions lately — or our list of top 10 most highly cited retracted papers? What about The Retraction Watch Mass Resignations List — or our list of nearly 100 papers with evidence they were written by ChatGPT?

Here’s what was happening elsewhere (some of these items may be paywalled, metered access, or require free registration to read):

Meet Retraction Watch’s two new journalists

Kate Travis (left) and Avery Orrall (right)

Please join us in welcoming two new Retraction Watch staff members: Managing editor Kate Travis, and reporter Avery Orrall.

Kate comes to us with a long and impressive resume. She has served as digital director at Science News, an editor for Science’s careers website, Science Careers, and news editor of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. She contributed a chapter to A Tactical Guide to Science Journalism, is the coordinator of the National Association of Science Writers’ Science in Society Journalism Awards, and serves as the part-time managing editor of Connector, an online library of resources on science writing produced by the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing. Reach her at [email protected].

Avery’s name will be familiar to readers, as she was one of our two summer interns last year and has since been our newsletter editor. She is a recent graduate of New York University’s Science, Health and Environmental Reporting Program, and has also interned at JAMA Medical News. Reach her at [email protected].

Introducing the Retraction Watch Sleuth in Residence Program

We’re thrilled to announce the creation of the Retraction Watch Sleuth in Residence Program, an opportunity for a sleuth to spend a year working with us.

Too often, sleuths work for free, often at great legal and personal risk. We want to build capacity in this space so others see the value of compensating and protecting the critical work of sleuths.

The goal of this program – funded by a generous donation from George Tidmarsh – is to offer a secure and paid position for an active sleuth with a proven track record. The Sleuth in Residence would work closely with our research team on specific projects, and with our journalism team to publish their findings. All of that work would go through rigorous review and be covered by our defamation insurance policy.

A look back at 2024 at Retraction Watch, and forward to 2025

If 2024 felt like a whirlwind, you’re not alone. It was another busy one here at Retraction Watch, too.

Some numbers to tell that story:

2024 was a record traffic year for us, with 7.5 million pageviews – a 15 percent jump from the previous record, set in 2015, thanks to a scoop some longtime readers may remember.
Here’s our top 10 list by traffic (in a thread over at Bluesky, which we joined in November).
The Retraction Watch Database – now part of Crossref – has just shy of 55,000 retraction entries, and counting.

A sampling of a few other key accomplishments this year:

Faked data prompts retraction of Nature journal study claiming creation of a new form of carbon

The journal Nature Synthesis has pulled a high-profile article describing the creation of a new type of carbon after a university investigation found some data were made up.

“The authors of the original paper claimed to have created an entirely new form or carbon, graphyne, which is fundamentally different common diamond or graphite,” said Valentin Rodionov, an assistant professor at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, whose team has been investigating the now-retracted work for the past two years.

“If true, this would have been a groundbreaking discovery,” Rodionov told Retraction Watch. His team described its findings in a commentary published on September 2 in the journal.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: