Well, it’s happened: The Embargo Watch and Retraction Watch worlds have collided. I had initially figured on two posts here, but it soon became clear that how journals were handling these retractions, using embargoes, was central to both. So this is being cross-posted on both blogs. Linda Buck, who shared the 2004 Nobel Prize in … Continue reading Nobelist Linda Buck retracts two studies on olfactory networks — and the news is embargoed
Yesterday, on a story about a Congressional hearing on the progress of oil spill cleanup in the Gulf of Mexico, the Guardian ran the following headline: BP oil spill: US scientist retracts assurances over success of cleanup NOAA’s Bill Lehr says three-quarters of the oil that gushed from the Deepwater Horizon rig is still in … Continue reading Did a NOAA scientist “retract” an overoptimistic oil spill report?
“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
There’s a retraction this week from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of a paper that first appeared online on July 1, 2005 (and which is still available, but notes under “this article” that “a retraction has been published”). The paper reports on a study that allegedly found a gene that made Arabidopsis plants … Continue reading 2005 PNAS Arabidopsis cold sensitivity gene paper retracted