Retraction Watch

Retraction Watch
Name	Retraction Watch
Founded	2010
Founders	Adam Marcus; Ivan Oransky
Type	Watchdog; Journalism
Headquarters	New York City

Retraction Watch is an independent news outlet that reports on retractions, corrections, and scientific integrity issues in published research. Founded in 2010 by Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky, the site has chronicled controversies across biomedical, social science, and physical science literature, engaging with institutions, journals, and researchers. Retraction Watch's reporting has intersected with debates involving publishers, universities, funding agencies, and regulatory bodies.

History

Retraction Watch was co-founded in 2010 by Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky after reporting on retractions at journals such as The Lancet, Science, Nature, The New England Journal of Medicine, and The BMJ. Early coverage included cases involving scientists linked to Harvard University, Duke University, Stanford University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Johns Hopkins University. The site documented high-profile incidents connected to figures like Hwang Woo-suk, Andrew Wakefield, Diederik Stapel, Jon Sudbø, and Haruko Obokata, and institutions including Seoul National University, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, University of Illinois Urbana–Champaign, and Uppsala University. Over time Retraction Watch expanded its database and reporting to encompass issues associated with publishers such as Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley-Blackwell, PLOS, and Frontiers Media S.A..

The platform’s timeline reflects developments in publishing and oversight involving entities like the Committee on Publication Ethics, Office of Research Integrity, National Institutes of Health, Wellcome Trust, and National Science Foundation. Retraction Watch's archives chronicle responses from editorial boards at venues including Cell, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, The Journal of the American Medical Association, and Lancet Oncology. The site's work has been cited in debates in forums such as United States Congress, European Parliament, and meetings of organizations like World Health Organization and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.

Mission and Activities

Retraction Watch states its mission as documenting retractions and promoting transparency in the research record by reporting on corrections, expressions of concern, and investigative outcomes. Its activities have included maintaining a retraction database, publishing investigative articles, and fostering discussion with stakeholders at institutions like Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, and university research offices at Columbia University and Yale University. The site has interviewed whistleblowers and litigants associated with cases involving authors connected to University of Oxford, University of Cambridge, University of California, Berkeley, and Imperial College London.

In addition to case reporting, Retraction Watch has partnered with academic groups and nonprofits such as Center for Open Science, Committee on Publication Ethics, and Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition to improve metadata and indexing of retractions at services like PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus. The outlet has engaged with publishers including Taylor & Francis, SAGE Publications, and IOP Publishing to encourage clearer correction notices and worked with repositories like arXiv and bioRxiv on preprint issues.

Notable Investigations and Impact

Retraction Watch’s investigations have shed light on cases involving researchers at University of Tokyo, University of Zurich, Karolinska Institutet, Monash University, and McGill University. Coverage of the Hwang Woo-suk stem cell fraud and the Andrew Wakefield vaccine paper retraction influenced discussion at The Lancet and drew responses from regulatory bodies including General Medical Council and South Korean Ministry of Education. Reporting has prompted publishers like Elsevier and Wiley to amend notices, and has led to institutional inquiries at University of Minnesota, University of Washington, University of Oxford, and University of Pittsburgh.

The site's database and commentary have been cited in analyses by organizations such as Retraction Database Project and referenced in policy documents at National Institutes of Health, European Research Council, and foundations including Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Retraction Watch has also highlighted misconduct cases connected to grant awards from agencies like National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health and spurred reforms in editorial practices at journals such as Nature Medicine and The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

Criticism and Controversies

Critics have argued that Retraction Watch's reporting can amplify allegations before due process, affecting careers at institutions including University of Chicago, Northwestern University, Cornell University, and Princeton University. Some editors at The New England Journal of Medicine, BMJ, and Science Translational Medicine have questioned the site’s methods for sourcing and framing stories, while publishers like Frontiers, Springer Nature, and Elsevier have disputed interpretations of retraction notices. Legal challenges and debates have involved parties affiliated with Harvard Medical School, Mayo Clinic, Riken, and Salk Institute.

Defenders cite the public interest and cite parallels with transparency efforts by groups such as Transparency International, Open Society Foundations, and Public Library of Science. Discussions about Retraction Watch have featured in panels at Association of American Publishers, Society for Scholarly Publishing, and conferences hosted by National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

Funding and Organization

Retraction Watch was initially funded through grants and donations and has received support from foundations and organizations such as Laura and John Arnold Foundation and partnerships with academic institutions like Northeastern University and City University of New York. Its organizational structure includes editors, reporters, and contributors with backgrounds at outlets such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Reuters, and it collaborates with advocacy and research groups including Center for Open Science and COPE. The publication has engaged legal counsel and advisors with ties to institutions like Columbia Law School and Georgetown University for issues relating to defamation and media law.

Category:Science journalism