Category: studies about retractions

Researchers often like to complain that science journalists puff up their results to sell newspapers. And there’s no question that reporters make missteps. But a commentary published today in the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine brings to mind the old saying about those who live in glass houses not casting the first stones.

In a piece called “Spin and Boasting in Research Articles,” Peter Cummings and Frederick Rivara, two University of Washington faculty members, write: Continue reading Researchers: Stop the spin and boasting in articles, say other researchers

There have been a number of thoughtful stories and opinion pieces on scientific fraud recently. There was Brian Deer in the Sunday Times of London last month. Paul Jump, at the Times Higher Education, later that month looked at the lessons of one particular case. Alok Jha, of the Guardian, took on the issue last week.

Yesterday, in a Knight Science Journalism Tracker post on a symposium on communicating science with integrity, Deborah Blum suggested science writers “need to be increasingly aware – and wary – of these issues in academic publishing,” while noting that they are a “minority report.” (And thanks to all of those pieces for the mentions and kind words about Retraction Watch.)

Some scientists, of course, agree, if the steady deluge of tips we get from working researchers is any indication. “We must be open about our mistakes,” wrote Jim Woodgett, of the Lunenfeld Research Institute in Toronto, in Nature earlier this month.

But not everyone thinks highlighting misconduct is such a good idea, Continue reading Does focusing on wrongdoing in research feed mistrust of science?

One of the important questions when it comes to retractions is, what happens to retracted papers? How do readers find out they’re retracted? There’s evidence they are cited less often, but that when they are cited, the vast majority of the time it’s as if they were never retracted.

So with all of that in mind, Phil Davis, an independent researcher and publishing consultant, set out to find Continue reading What happens to copies of retracted papers on non-publisher websites (eg PubMed Central)?

We didn’t plan it this way, but our second anniversary gift came a few days early this week, when we learned that a retraction notice had cited us. Given that the traditional second anniversary gift is cotton, and we’re really not sure what to do with that information, we’re much happier — and humbled — by the mention.

Two years ago today, we launched Retraction Watch. When we looked back at year one, we had written more than 250 posts; that number is up to more than 600. We had a new record-holder in our first year, Joachim Boldt, with 88 retractions; we now have a new one, Yoshitaka Fujii, with 172 likely. This July, we crossed the three million-pageview threshold, and also saw our first 300,000-pageview month.

But numbers don’t always tell the whole story, Continue reading Happy second anniversary, Retraction Watch: Plus, our plans for year three

A record-breaking year for retractions in 2011, a new record for retractions by one person — what’s going on? Continue reading Is science becoming less honest? Join Retraction Watch in a live chat with Science