In what has become an annual tradition, our friends at The Scientist asked us to round up what we thought were the biggest retractions of the last 12 months. Not surprisingly, the list is dominated by some of the 39 retractions we’ve seen of COVID-19 studies. But that’s not the whole list.
Head on over to see our picks.
Continue reading The top retractions of 2020: Mostly, but not all, COVID-19
As we celebrate our tenth birthday and look forward to our second decade, we thought it would be a good time to take stock and reflect on some lessons we — and others — have learned.
Ten years.
On Aug. 3, 2010, we published our first post on Retraction Watch. Titled, “Why write a blog about retractions?”, the welcome letter to readers outlined our hopes for the new blog. Retractions, we felt then, offered “a window into the scientific process,” as well as a source of good stories for journalists. In both regards, we have not been disappointed.
Continue reading Retraction Watch turns 10: A look back, and a look forward
Over the past few days, we’ve noticed a spike in traffic — sometimes so large that it crashes our site — to older posts about Judy Mikovits. It appears that Mikovits is once again in the news. Here’s a story from Vice that provides some context:
Continue reading Who is Judy Mikovits?We know there are a lot of causes that matter to you, but since you’re reading this, we may be one of them. So we’d like to ask for your support.
On this Giving Tuesday Now, please consider making a tax-deductible contribution to The Center For Scientific Integrity, the 501(c)3 parent organization of Retraction Watch. Any amount helps. Your donation will help us shine a spotlight on scientific misconduct, and on the process — too often messy and slow — of correcting the scholarly record.
Here’s what your donations will continue to help make possible:
Continue reading This Giving Tuesday Now, please consider supporting Retraction Watch
Nine and a half years ago, Adam Marcus and I had an idea: A blog about retractions. Apparently, we needed to convince ourselves that it was a good idea. Otherwise, why would our first post, on Aug. 3, 2010, be titled “Why write a blog about retractions?”
That was post #1. And this, dear reader, is post #5,000. Yes, 5,000.
Continue reading This is our 5,000th post — and we have a $5,000 matching pledge if you can help us for the next 5,000
Daniel Vasgird was a well-known figure in research integrity circles. He died in late January at the age of 74. We’re honored to present a remembrance that Michael Kalichman put together to honor Vasgird’s memory at the Association for Practical and Professional Ethics (APPE) meeting next week in Atlanta.
Just a few weeks ago, the research integrity community lost a dear friend and leader. For those who did not know Dan well, it might help to describe his particular role in creating the still evolving domain of “research ethics.”
Dan trained in social sciences, beginning with bachelor’s and master’s degrees in California at UC Riverside, followed by a move to New York, where he earned his Ph.D. in Social Psychology at Syracuse University. After completing his Ph.D., Dan accepted an NIMH post-doctoral research fellowship at Berkeley and worked in Asia as a human services educator and consultant for the federal government.
His career in research ethics began in 1988 with the New York City Department of Health. Dan both chaired the Institutional Review Board and became director of a Health Research Training Program. His career trajectory continued with City University of New York (2000-2002) where he was responsible for overseeing human research protections through 19 Institutional Research Boards, worked on developing a conflict of interest policy, and taught courses in research ethics.
Continue reading Remembering research integrity leader Daniel Vasgird, December 30, 1945-January 30, 2020
Did you know that a preprint on the 2019 novel coronavirus was retracted this weekend? It happened so fast, you might have missed it.
Continue reading A preprint on coronavirus was retracted over the weekend. Here’s why that was a good moment for science.In August 2020, Retraction Watch will turn 10 — a milestone we still can’t quite wrap our minds around. When we started the blog in 2010, we thought we might have enough material for a post or two a month. Little did we know that our little side gig would eventually lead to the world’s largest database of retracted papers; or that there would be so many of them (now more than 1,400 per year); or, to be honest, how little we (and others) knew about these events.
This year saw several important developments for our project. We entered into a partnership with Zotero that allows them to alert users to retractions of any papers in their personal libraries — and, we hope, helps researchers to better avoid citing retracted papers in their work. Our database now includes more than 20,000 retractions.
Continue reading A look back at Retraction Watch in 2019 — and forward to our 10th anniversary
Not surprisingly, the year that saw our database surpass 20,000 retractions was a busy one for us. In what has become an annual tradition, our friends at The Scientist asked us to round up what we thought were the biggest retractions of the last 12 months.
Continue reading The top retractions of 2019: A new record, some impressive numbers, and some bizarre stories