Category: studies about retractions

Gentle readers: Since August of 2010 when we launched Retraction Watch, you’ve showed us plenty of love, for which we are ever grateful. Your encouragement, story tips, and critiques are what make the site what it is. It’s great to know that we are providing you with a valuable source of information that has helped focus public attention on scientific misconduct and the process of self-correction.

Now, we’re hoping some of you will consider making a financial contribution. To continue to grow Retraction Watch, we will need resources. Please consider supporting our blog financially by becoming a paying subscriber at a modest level (or, if the spirit moves you, at an immodest level — we’ll take that, too!).

How will we use the money? Continue reading Dear Retraction Watch readers: We want to grow. Here’s how you can help

Retraction Watch readers will likely be familiar with the story of Paul Brookes, the University of Rochester researcher whose identity as the person behind Science-Fraud.org was revealed in January 2013. That revelation — and legal threats — forced Brookes to shutter Science-Fraud.org.

In a new illuminating interview in Science, Brookes discusses the legal threats he faced, how they curtailed his travel, and how his university responded, among other subjects.

The risks faced by whistleblowers are a constant thread on Retraction Watch. So did the site have an effect on his ability to do science? Continue reading So what happened after Paul Brookes was forced to shut down Science-Fraud.org?

From time to time, we find online college syllabi among those sites referring us traffic, and some professors have told us that they use Retraction Watch in their classes. We’re pleased and humbled by that.

In a new paper published in the Journal of College Science Teaching, three professors at Clayton State University in Morrow, Georgia, discuss why retractions are good case studies for teaching ethics and examining the scientific process in class. Stephen Burnett, Richard H. Singiser, and Caroline Clower write: Continue reading Retractions are useful for teaching science, say college profs

About three years ago, we brought Retraction Watch readers news of our new favorite journal, the Journal of Universal Rejection. In a post titled “No retractions necessary” that featured an interview with the editor, Caleb Emmons, we quoted the journal:

The founding principle of the Journal of Universal Rejection (JofUR) is rejection. Universal rejection. That is to say, all submissions, regardless of quality, will be rejected.

So we’re thrilled to learn that the JofUR has now moved into the lucrative conference market, with their Conference of Universal Rejection scheduled for August of this year: Continue reading Coming soon to a city nowhere near you: The Conference of Universal Rejection