Retraction Watch readers, we really need your help

Dear Retraction Watch readers: We hope that you continue to enjoy Retraction Watch, and find it — and our database of retractions — useful. 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 in our database, or on the blog. Maybe … Continue reading Retraction Watch readers, we really need your help

Misconduct investigation reports are uneven at best. Here’s how to make them better.

Retraction Watch readers may have noticed that over the past year or so, we have been making an effort to obtain and publish reports about institutional investigations into misconduct. That’s led to posts such as one about a case at the University of Colorado, Denver, one about the case of Frank Sauer, formerly of the … Continue reading Misconduct investigation reports are uneven at best. Here’s how to make them better.

Retraction Watch is back at full speed. Here’s what you need to do to make sure you’re seeing our content.

Our readers will likely know that the site has been having significant trouble for more than two weeks. Thanks for your patience, your offers to help, and for sticking with us during that time. We’re happy to say that we seem to have identified all of the various issues involved, and have solved them. Some … Continue reading Retraction Watch is back at full speed. Here’s what you need to do to make sure you’re seeing our content.

Is our database missing a retraction? Tell us!

As many readers know, we’ve been hard at work curating a comprehensive database of retractions, and are now up to more than 16,000 entries. Despite that large number — as much as triple what you’ll find in commonly used databases — we know there are notices we’re missing. We’re doing our best to fill in […]

The post Is our database missing a retraction? Tell us! appeared first on Retraction Watch.

The 2017 Retraction Watch Year in Review (hint: Our database is nearly done)

One journal broke a retractions record by pulling more than 100 papers in one day for faked reviews, a Harvard graduate student obtained a restraining order against his boss after being forced to undergo a psychiatric exam, and a well-known food scientist at Cornell faced heavy criticism about his research. And that’s just some of […]

The post The 2017 Retraction Watch Year in Review (hint: Our database is nearly done) appeared first on Retraction Watch.

Top 10 retractions of 2017

It’s time for the “Best of 2017” lists to start appearing — so why not do one for retractions? We think it’s a good idea, so have partnered with The Scientist for the last few years to compile our most notable notices of the year. From new records to mass resignations, you can check out […]

The post Top 10 retractions of 2017 appeared first on Retraction Watch.

On Giving Tuesday, consider supporting the work of Retraction Watch

We 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 […]

The post On Giving Tuesday, consider supporting the work of Retraction Watch appeared first on Retraction Watch.

Pay to play: Scientists are bristling over the cost of a common research tool

A commonly used questionnaire designed to predict how well patients will stick to their drug regimen is stirring up some controversy in the publishing world. Over the last decade, the creator of the copyrighted questionnaire — public health specialist Donald Morisky of the University of California, Los Angeles — has aggressively pursued any researcher who uses […]

The post Pay to play: Scientists are bristling over the cost of a common research tool appeared first on Retraction Watch.

The Olympics of research into scientific publishing is happening now. Follow along here.

CHICAGO — As many Retraction Watch readers may know, the Peer Review Congress happens every four years — much like the Olympics. For three days here on the shores of Lake Michigan, researchers will present findings on subjects from bias to data sharing to misconduct. Our Ivan Oransky is there, and will be tweeting, so […]

The post The Olympics of research into scientific publishing is happening now. Follow along here. appeared first on Retraction Watch.

Paid to publish: It’s not just China

A recent pre-print showed that scientists in China can earn up to $165,000 to publish a paper in a top journal, but that’s not the only place where researchers can get some extra cash. Recently, we conducted an informal search for other institutions around the world that offer cash prizes for publishing research — and […]

The post Paid to publish: It’s not just China appeared first on Retraction Watch.