Did you know that a preprint on the 2019 novel coronavirus was retracted this weekend?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Continue reading A preprint on coronavirus was retracted over the weekend.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 storiesWe 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, 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, please consider supporting Retraction Watch
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.
Continue reading Final reminder: We’re phasing out one of our email alerts. Here’s how to keep up with Retraction Watch.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.
Continue reading Reminder: We’re phasing out one of our email alerts. Here’s how to keep up with Retraction Watch.
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.
Continue reading Our database just reached a big milestone: 20,000 retractions. Will you help us with the next 20,000?
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.
Continue reading We’re phasing out one of our email alerts. Here’s how to keep up with Retraction Watch.
Dear Retraction Watch readers:
Maybe you’re a researcher who likes keeping up with developments in scientific integrity. Maybe you’re a reporter who has found a story idea on the blog. Maybe you’re an ethics instructor who uses the site to find case studies. Or a publisher who uses our blog to screen authors who submit manuscripts — we know at least two who do.
Whether you fall into one of those categories or another, we need your help.
Continue reading Retraction Watch readers, we still need your help to be able to continue our workNine years ago this coming Saturday, on August 3, 2010, we published a post, “Why write a blog about retractions?”
Why, indeed!
What has become clear in the intervening nine years is what a rich vein retractions are as stories of what happens when something goes wrong in science. And as we have done every year at this time, we’ll review what happened in the last 12 months.
Continue reading Happy birthday, Retraction Watch: We’re turning nine
