Category: RW announcements

Join us in welcoming new staff writer Dalmeet Singh Chawla.

Dalmeet was inspired by talks at the 2014 Association of British Science Writers meeting (including by our own Ivan Oransky) to build a niche for himself as a writer – lucky for us, he chose science publishing. His focus has been on stories about innovations in scholarly publishing, but also covered peer review, authorship and publisher policies along the way.

As Dalmeet told us: Continue reading Meet our newest team member: Dalmeet Singh Chawla

Dear Retraction Watch readers: Those of you signed up for our emails for every post may have wondered why we haven’t sent you any emails since Saturday. Well, it wasn’t because we didn’t want to. We had a technical glitch, which we’ve now fixed. Apologies for that, and here are links to the posts that appeared this week. We’re posting them in case you missed them. Thanks for reading! Continue reading Some posts you may have missed: Impressive amounts of plagiarism; PhD revocation; a poll, and more

Since you know about us, we’d like to know more about you, readers. So we’ve created the Retraction Watch User Survey. We’d love it if you could take a few minutes to fill out these 15 questions, which will let us know a little bit about yourself, how you use Retraction Watch, and any changes or additions you’d like to see.

Your responses will inform some planning work we are currently doing around the future of Retraction Watch. (Don’t worry, we’re not going anywhere. We just want to make the site better and more useful to you, and to make sure we can sustain and grow it while continuing to make it freely available.) Please know that all data gathered for this survey will be used for internal purposes only, and will remain de-identified and confidential.  Continue reading Survey: Retraction Watch readers, tell us about yourself

There are hundreds of retractions per year, and a constant stream of new developments in publishing and fraud — all of which keeps our small staff very busy.

As a result, we can’t immediately post on every new retraction that we or our readers discover. So we’ve created a new page to show you some of what’s on our current to-do list, to give you a “sneak peek” at what’s to come. If you have any tips for us about a retraction, expression of concern, or correction you see on our “help us” page — or know of any other retractions by the same authors — please let us know in a comment.

For example, here are some of the retractions on that page now: Continue reading Want to help us report? Here’s a sneak peek at what we’re working on

We’ve heard from a number of readers that our current volume of posts — three per day most weekdays, and sometimes four — makes an email per post a lot to wade through. We listened, and now you have another option.

For readers who like their retraction news in a digestible form, starting tomorrow morning, we will begin offering the option of a daily newsletter. Here’s a sample. Click here to subscribe.

Every morning, you’ll get links to everything we’ve covered in the last 24 hours, along with a few stories from around the web, much as you might find in Weekend Reads. Continue reading Want to keep up with Retraction Watch but get fewer emails? Try our new daily newsletter

It’s been a great 12 months for Retraction Watch.

We took some major steps as an organization. Some highlights:

Continue reading The Retraction Watch 2015 review: A year of gratitude and expansion

Ever wondered which retracted papers had the biggest impact on their fields?

We’ve compiled a list of the 10 most highly cited retracted papers. Note that many papers — including the #1 most cited paper — received more citations after they were retracted, which research has shown is an ongoing problem.

Readers will see some familiar entries, such as Continue reading Here are the top 10 most highly cited retracted papers, ranked

It’s that time of year…

Our friends at The Scientist have once again asked us to compile our top 10 retractions of the year. Check out our “greatest hits” of the year. Continue reading The top 10 retractions of 2015

We’re very pleased to announce a new grant for $130,000 from The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust to The Center For Scientific Integrity, our parent non-profit organization.

The generous funding from the Trust’s Biomedical Research Infrastructure Program will allow us to work with a consultant to develop operational and sustainability plans for the Center. Over the coming months, we will assess the current unmet needs within the realm of scientific integrity, develop a strategic business plan that targets those unmet needs, and explore opportunities for growth. While grants will remain a critical part of our budget, we hope to  Continue reading Helmsley Trust helps Retraction Watch chart its future with new $130,000 grant