Retraction Watch

Last updated

Retraction Watch
Retraction Watch logo.webp
Type of site
 Blog
Available inEnglish
OwnerCenter for Scientific Integrity
URL retractionwatch.com OOjs UI icon edit-ltr-progressive.svg
CommercialNo
LaunchedAugust 2010

Retraction Watch is a blog that reports on retractions of scientific papers and on related topics. [1] The blog was launched in August 2010 [2] and is produced by science writers Ivan Oransky (Former Vice President, Editorial Medscape ) [3] and Adam Marcus (editor of Gastroenterology & Endoscopy News). [4] Its parent organization is the Center for Scientific Integrity, a US 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.

Contents

Motivation and scope

In 2011, Oransky and Marcus pointed out in Nature that the peer review process for scholarly publications continues long after the publication date. [5] They were motivated to launch Retraction Watch to encourage this continuation and to increase the transparency of the retraction process. [6] They observed that retractions of papers generally are not announced, that the reasons for retractions are not publicized, and that other researchers or the public who are unaware of the retraction may make decisions based on invalid results. [6] Oransky described an example of a paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that reported a potential role for a drug against some types of breast cancers. Although the paper was later retracted, its retraction was not reported in media outlets that had earlier reported its positive conclusions, with a company having been established on the basis of the ultimately retracted conclusions. [7]

Oransky and Marcus claim that retractions also provide a window into the self-correcting nature of science, can provide insight into cases of scientific fraud, and can "be the source of great stories that say a lot about how science is conducted". [7] [8] In January 2021, more than 50 studies have cited Retraction Watch as the scientific publishing community is exploring the impact of retracted papers. [9] During the COVID-19 pandemic, Retraction Watch maintained a separate list of retracted articles that added to misinformation about the pandemic, [10] with additional research undertaken to analyse the subsequent pollution of further research as retracted papers are cited and used within scholarly research. [11]

In 2023, in the wake of the resignation of Stanford University president Marc Tessier-Lavigne, Oransky and Marcus co-authored op-eds in Scientific American [12] and The Guardian . [13] They estimated that scientific misconduct was more common than is reported. They also assessed that, despite recent scandals involving research misconduct, the academic community was not interested in exposing wrongdoing and scientific errors. However, all members of the academic community are responsible for the delays and lack of action.

Impact

Retraction Watch has demonstrated that retractions are more common than was previously thought. [7] When Retraction Watch was launched, Marcus "wondered if we'd have enough material". [14] It had been estimated that about 80 papers were retracted annually. [7] However, in its first year, the blog reported on approximately 200 retractions. [15] In October 2019 the Retraction Watch Database reached a milestone 20,000 entries [16] As of January 2024, it contains over 50,000 entries. [17]

Hijacked journal tracker

In 2022, Retraction Watch added a feature that tracks journal hijacking. Political scientist Anna Abalkina had developed a method for identifying hijacked journal domains based on an analysis of the archives of clone journals. This method is based on the argument that fraudulent publishers recycle identical papers to create a fictitious archive for a hijacked journal. [18] Methods used to locate or confirm hijacked statuses of journals include duplicated journal archives, identical website templates, growth in indexing, anomalous citations, and scholars’ comments. [19] Abalkina created the Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker in partnership with Retraction Watch. [20]

Funding

Retraction Watch has been funded by a variety of sources, including donations and grants. They received grants from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Helmsley Charitable Trust, and the Laura and John Arnold Foundation. [21] The database of retractions was funded by a $400,000 grant from the MacArthur Foundation in 2015. [22] [23] They have partnered with the Center for Open Science, which is also funded by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, to create a retraction database on the Open Science Framework. [24]    

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Scientific misconduct</span> Violation of codes of scholarly conduct and ethical behavior in scientific research

Scientific misconduct is the violation of the standard codes of scholarly conduct and ethical behavior in the publication of professional scientific research. It is violation of scientific integrity: violation of the scientific method and of research ethics in science, including in the design, conduct, and reporting of research.

In academic publishing, a retraction is a mechanism by which a published paper in an academic journal is flagged for being seriously flawed to the extent that their results and conclusions can no longer be relied upon. Retracted articles are not removed from the published literature but marked as retracted. In some cases it may be necessary to remove an article from publication, such as when the article is clearly defamatory, violates personal privacy, is the subject of a court order, or might pose a serious health risk to the general public.

Andrew Jess Dannenberg is a U.S. physician and former researcher specializing in molecular mechanisms of cancer, formerly associated with Weill Medical College/M.D. Anderson Cancer Center.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Brian Wansink</span> American consumer behavior researcher

Brian Wansink is an American former professor and researcher who worked in consumer behavior and marketing research. He was the executive director of the USDA's Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion (CNPP) from 2007 to 2009 and held the John S. Dyson Endowed Chair in the Applied Economics and Management Department at Cornell University, where he directed the Cornell Food and Brand Lab.

Carlo Maria Croce is an Italian-American professor of medicine at Ohio State University, specializing in oncology and the molecular mechanisms underlying cancer. Croce and his research have attracted public attention because of multiple allegations of scientific misconduct.

Naoki Mori is a Japanese virologist who is a professor at the University of the Ryukyus in Okinawa Prefecture, Japan. He has received numerous awards for his research on human T-cell leukemia virus type 1 (HTLV-1), a retrovirus which causes adult T-cell leukemia.

Joachim Boldt is a German anesthesiologist who fabricated or falsified data, including those reporting clinical trial results.

Scientific Reports is a peer-reviewed open-access scientific mega journal published by Nature Portfolio, covering all areas of the natural sciences. The journal was established in 2011. The journal states that their aim is to assess solely the scientific validity of a submitted paper, rather than its perceived importance, significance, or impact.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Harald Walach</span> German parapsychologist

Harald Walach is a German parapsychologist and advocate of alternative medicine.

Milena Penkowa is a Danish neuroscientist who was a professor at the Panum Institute at the University of Copenhagen from 2009–2010. In 2010 she was convicted of fraud and embezzlement of funds from The Danish Society of Neuroscience. In the same year, she was suspended by the University of Copenhagen and consequently resigned her professorship. In 2012, the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty concluded that she had been guilty of scientific misconduct. As of 2020 Penkowa has had nine of her research publications retracted, and four others have received expressions of concern.

Dipak Kumar Das was the director of the Cardiovascular Research Center at the University of Connecticut Health Center in Farmington and is known for research fraud. His work centered on the beneficial properties of resveratrol, which is found in red wine, but over twenty of his research papers have been since retracted.

Silvia Bulfone-Paus is an Italian immunologist. She is the chair of the Research Center Borstel's Department of Immunology and Cell Biology and also serves as professor of Immunobiology at the University of Manchester School of Medicine.

Frontiers Media SA is a publisher of peer-reviewed, open access, scientific journals currently active in science, technology, and medicine. It was founded in 2007 by Kamila and Henry Markram. Frontiers is based in Lausanne, Switzerland, with offices in the United Kingdom, Spain, and China. In 2022, Frontiers employed more than 1,400 people, across 14 countries. All Frontiers journals are published under a Creative Commons Attribution License.

Yoshitaka Fujii is a Japanese researcher in anesthesiology, who in 2012 was found to have fabricated data in at least 219 scientific papers, of which 183 have been retracted.

Clare Francis is a pseudonym used since 2010 by the author of hundreds of whistle-blowing emails sent to the editors of scientific journals that call attention to suspected cases of plagiarism and fabricated or duplicated figures. Described as a scientific gadfly, the pseudonymous Francis is "a source both legendary and loathed in biomedical circles" for their "uncanny knack for seeing improperly altered images, as well as smaller flaws that some editors are inclined to ignore." Francis refers to themself as an "attentive reader"; their "real identity, gender, and occupation remain secret."

Bharat B. Aggarwal is an Indian-American biochemist. His research has been in the areas of cytokines, the role of inflammation in cancer, and the anti-cancer effects of spices and herbs, particularly curcumin. He was a professor in the Department of Clinical Immunology, Bioimmunotherapy, and Experimental Therapeutics at University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas.

Jonathan Neal Pruitt is a former academic researcher. He was an Associate Professor of behavioral ecology and Canada 150 Research Chair in Biological Dystopias at McMaster University. Pruitt's research focused primarily on animal personalities and the social behavior of spiders and other organisms.

Abida Sophie Jamal is a Canadian endocrinologist and former osteoporosis researcher who was at the centre of a scientific misconduct case in the mid-to-late 2010s. Jamal published a high-profile paper suggesting that the heart medication nitroglycerin was a treatment for osteoporosis, and was later demonstrated to have misrepresented her results. She received a lifetime ban from receiving funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and was named directly in their disclosure report, becoming the first person mentioned by name by the institute for scientific misconduct. Jamal was later stripped of her medical license for two years, regaining it in a controversial 3–2 decision.

Ivan Oransky is an American physician, medical researcher and journalist, known for his advocacy of scientific integrity through improved tracking and institutional reforms. His opinions and statistics on scientific misconduct have been described in the media.

References

  1. ↑ Strauss, Stephen (April 7, 2011). "Searching for truth in published research". CBC News.
  2. ↑ Collier R (2011). "Shedding light on retractions". CMAJ. 183 (7): E385-6. doi:10.1503/cmaj.109-3827. PMC   3080553 . PMID   21444620.
  3. ↑ Ivan Oransky Bio on Retraction Watch Retrieved February 5, 2015.
  4. ↑ Adam Marcus Bio on Retraction Watch Retrieved February 5, 2015.
  5. ↑ Marcus, Adam; Oransky, Ivan (December 21, 2011). "The paper is not sacred". Nature. 480 (7378): 449–450. doi:10.1038/480449a. PMID   22193084.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  6. 1 2 Silverman, Craig (August 9, 2010). "Retraction Action". Columbia Journalism Review . Retrieved October 25, 2011.
  7. 1 2 3 4 Kelly Oakes, Helping journalists track retractions: one year of Retraction Watch Archived April 19, 2012, at the Wayback Machine , Association of British Science Writers, August 20, 2011.
  8. ↑ Oransky, Ivan; Adam Marcus (August 3, 2010). "Why write a blog about retractions?". Retraction Watch. Retrieved October 25, 2011.
  9. ↑ "Papers that cite Retraction Watch". Retraction Watch. March 28, 2020. Retrieved January 13, 2021.
  10. ↑ "Retracted coronavirus (COVID-19) papers". Retraction Watch. April 29, 2020. Retrieved January 13, 2021.
  11. ↑ Van Der Walt, Wynand; Willems, Kris; Friedrich, Wernher; Hatsu, Sylvester; Kirstin, Krauss (2020). "Retracted Covid-19 papers and the levels of 'citation pollution': A preliminary analysis and directions for further research". Cahiers de la Documentation – Bladen voor Documentatie. 3 (4). hdl:10962/167732 . Retrieved January 13, 2021.
  12. ↑ Oransky, Ivan; Marcus, Adam (August 1, 2023). "Science Corrects Itself, Right? A Scandal at Stanford Says It Doesn't". Scientific American.
  13. ↑ Oransky, Ivan; Marcus, Adam (August 9, 2023). "There's far more scientific fraud than anyone wants to admit". The Guardian.
  14. ↑ Wade, Nicholas (October 14, 2010). "3 Harvard Researchers Retract a Claim on the Aging of Stem Cells". New York Times . Retrieved October 25, 2011.
  15. ↑ "Making science transparent". Ottawa Citizen . August 12, 2011. Retrieved October 25, 2011.
  16. ↑ Oransky, Ivan (October 17, 2019). "Our database just reached a big milestone: 20,000 retractions. Will you help us with the next 20,000". Retraction Watch. Retrieved September 21, 2020.
  17. ↑ "Retraction Watch Database". retractiondatabase.org. Retrieved April 6, 2024.
  18. ↑ Abalkina, Anna (August 2021). "Detecting a network of hijacked journals by its archive". Scientometrics. 126 (8): 7123–7148. arXiv: 2101.01224 . doi:10.1007/s11192-021-04056-0. S2CID   230523913 . Retrieved March 31, 2023.
  19. ↑ "Methods". Retraction Watch. May 30, 2022. Retrieved March 31, 2023.
  20. ↑ "The Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker". Retraction Watch. May 30, 2022. Retrieved March 31, 2023.
  21. ↑ Kolowich, Steve (September 25, 2015). "Meet Retraction Watch, the Blog That Points Out the Human Stains on the Scientific Record". The Chronicle of Higher Education. ISSN   0009-5982 . Retrieved October 11, 2019.
  22. ↑ "From ScienceWriters: Retraction Watch receives $400,000 grant". www.nasw.org. Retrieved October 11, 2019.
  23. ↑ Markovac, Jasna; Kleinman, Molly; Englesbe, Michael, eds. (January 1, 2018). "Chapter 19 - Publishing Ethics: An Interview With the Founders of Retraction Watch". Medical and Scientific Publishing. Academic Press: 179–186. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-809969-8.00019-X. ISBN   9780128099698 . Retrieved October 11, 2019.
  24. ↑ "Center for Open Science and The Center for Scientific Integrity Announce Partnership". cos.io. Retrieved October 11, 2019.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.