Retraction Watch - 09/12/23 04:35 PM
Professionals, graduate students, and many curious gifted kids with deep and frequent questions, understand that science is never settled, therefore ideas arising from each research study tend to spawn new hypotheses, leading to the design of new experiments, control variables, and hopefully larger sample sizes.
Unfortunately, there may be attempts to manipulate the data, outcomes, and prominence of any given work... to make it more influential.In the case being discussed, a paper earned a “highly cited paper” designation.
About "Retraction Watch"
Created in 2010, the Center For Scientific Integrity (CSI) has published Retraction Watch (RW) online, "Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process". Link - https://retractionwatch.com/ This entity has specialized in investigative journalism, basically functioning as reliable documenter or score keeper for those interested in the state of integrity in the field of scientific inquiry.
Just as sports teams have oft-quoted statistics, notable rising stars, and notorious has-beens, the field of scientific research, being foundational to the underpinnings of society, cultural understanding, and public policy, bears examination. Even scrutiny. And plenty of Monday-morning quarterbacking from your average armchair observer, whether or not they have ever played on the field in a professional capacity.
There may be many reasons for a retraction, some banal and others severe.
For example, here is a list of reasons, in alphabetic order: https://retractionwatch.com/retract...-database-user-guide-appendix-b-reasons/
"Research Misconduct" may be among the most egregious, as it appears to imply acting with knowledge and intent.
One recent example - Eric Stewart, of Florida State University (FSU) https://retractionwatch.com/2023/07...logy-professor-blemished-by-retractions/
Today's Acquisition
Crossref has purchased the "Retraction Watch" database.
Crossref acquires Retraction Watch data and opens it for the scientific community
link - https://www.crossref.org/blog/news-crossref-and-retraction-watch/
Sept 12, 2023
"Retraction Watch" describes the sale this way:
Looking to the Future
Going forward, it will be interesting to see the impact of Crossref's purchase on RW. Will the acquisition simply provide increased funding for Retraction Watch to carry on as usual or might some amount of RW's independence, autonomy, objectivity, and collected data may be lost, in support of global goals which may potentially be brought to the table by Crossref.
Unfortunately, there may be attempts to manipulate the data, outcomes, and prominence of any given work... to make it more influential.
Originally Posted by post at Retraction Watch, May 20, 2022, 1:14pm
"Paper-mills often cite their own earlier fakes in later submissions."
About "Retraction Watch"
Created in 2010, the Center For Scientific Integrity (CSI) has published Retraction Watch (RW) online, "Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process". Link - https://retractionwatch.com/ This entity has specialized in investigative journalism, basically functioning as reliable documenter or score keeper for those interested in the state of integrity in the field of scientific inquiry.
Just as sports teams have oft-quoted statistics, notable rising stars, and notorious has-beens, the field of scientific research, being foundational to the underpinnings of society, cultural understanding, and public policy, bears examination. Even scrutiny. And plenty of Monday-morning quarterbacking from your average armchair observer, whether or not they have ever played on the field in a professional capacity.
There may be many reasons for a retraction, some banal and others severe.
For example, here is a list of reasons, in alphabetic order: https://retractionwatch.com/retract...
"Research Misconduct" may be among the most egregious, as it appears to imply acting with knowledge and intent.
One recent example - Eric Stewart, of Florida State University (FSU) https://retractionwatch.com/2023/07...
Today's Acquisition
Crossref has purchased the "Retraction Watch" database.
Crossref acquires Retraction Watch data and opens it for the scientific community
link - https:/
Sept 12, 2023
Originally Posted by Brief excerpt
Agreement to combine and publicly distribute data about tens of thousands of retracted research papers, and grow the service together
12th September 2023 —– The Center for Scientific Integrity, the organisation behind the Retraction Watch blog and database, and Crossref, the global infrastructure underpinning research communications, both not-for-profits, announced today that the Retraction Watch database has been acquired by Crossref and made a public resource. An agreement between the two organisations will allow Retraction Watch to keep the data populated on an ongoing basis and always open, alongside publishers registering their retraction notices directly with Crossref.
12th September 2023 —– The Center for Scientific Integrity, the organisation behind the Retraction Watch blog and database, and Crossref, the global infrastructure underpinning research communications, both not-for-profits, announced today that the Retraction Watch database has been acquired by Crossref and made a public resource. An agreement between the two organisations will allow Retraction Watch to keep the data populated on an ongoing basis and always open, alongside publishers registering their retraction notices directly with Crossref.
Originally Posted by Brief excerpt
We’re thrilled to announce that Crossref has acquired The Retraction Watch Database and will make it completely open and freely available.
For those of you unfamiliar, here’s how Crossref describes itself: “Crossref makes research objects easy to find, cite, link, assess, and reuse. We’re a not-for-profit membership organization that exists to make scholarly communications better.” They are indeed the ideal home for the Database, and the perfect collaborator: A nonprofit organization that shares our mission and has a highly successful track record of building tools and resources that make research more efficient.
But there’s more. As part of our agreement with them, and to recognize the clear value of what Retraction Watch has created, Crossref has paid us an acquisition fee that is roughly equivalent to half of our annual budget. They will also pay us an annual fee, initially for five years, to continue to maintain and update the database.
For those of you unfamiliar, here’s how Crossref describes itself: “Crossref makes research objects easy to find, cite, link, assess, and reuse. We’re a not-for-profit membership organization that exists to make scholarly communications better.” They are indeed the ideal home for the Database, and the perfect collaborator: A nonprofit organization that shares our mission and has a highly successful track record of building tools and resources that make research more efficient.
But there’s more. As part of our agreement with them, and to recognize the clear value of what Retraction Watch has created, Crossref has paid us an acquisition fee that is roughly equivalent to half of our annual budget. They will also pay us an annual fee, initially for five years, to continue to maintain and update the database.
Going forward, it will be interesting to see the impact of Crossref's purchase on RW. Will the acquisition simply provide increased funding for Retraction Watch to carry on as usual or might some amount of RW's independence, autonomy, objectivity, and collected data may be lost, in support of global goals which may potentially be brought to the table by Crossref.