2010 was a busy year at Retraction Watch. (Well, actually the first seven months of it weren’t busy at all, since we didn’t launch until August.) We’ve published 88 posts, an average of about four per week. We no longer wonder whether we’ll have enough material to post frequently, as Adam told The New York … Continue reading Top Retraction Watch posts of 2010, and a short wish list for 2011
Last week, we noted a Nature editorial in which the journal came clean about its higher-than-average number of retractions this year — four. What we missed was the fact that the fourth retraction of the year also appeared in last week’s issue. The retraction, of a paper called “The large-conductance Ca2+-activated K+ channel is essential … Continue reading Previously questioned Nature paper on innate immunity retracted
This week’s Nature includes a refreshing and soul-searching editorial about retractions. Excerpt (we added links and corrected a misspelling and wrong country in the editorial after a reader noted the errors below): This year, Nature has published four retractions, an unusually large number. In 2009 we published one. Throughout the past decade, we have averaged … Continue reading Nature comes clean about retractions and why they’re on the rise
Last week’s big Retraction Watch news — which got us quoted in the New York Times — was a Nature paper by Amy Wagers and Shane Mayack. The now-retracted paper suggested that the aging of stem cells could be reversed, and Blood has issued a notice of concern about a second paper. Now comes news … Continue reading Another stem cell paper retracted, for “breach of established ethical guidelines”
Amy Wagers, an up and coming stem cell researcher at Harvard who made a name for herself as a postdoc early by questioning the work of others, has retracted a January 2010 paper she co-authored in Nature. According to the retraction: Three of the authors (J.L.S., F.S.K. and A.J.W.) wish to retract this Article after … Continue reading Highly cited Harvard stem cell scientist retracts Nature paper
“Because of its growing reach and influence, Retraction Watch’s investigations and revelations have helped to address the issue of ‘unhelpful retraction notices’.” In 2020, NewsGuard said we were “unsung heroes,” one of ten sites they pointed to as “models in producing content that is truthful, compelling, credible, and transparent.” “The seamier side of academia, lying, … Continue reading What people are saying about Retraction Watch