Retraction Watch!

[agentkeysel]

“Retraction” is a word that no one in academia ever wants to hear. We make a big deal out of publications, but people seldom talk about retractions, because let’s be honest: nothing good ever comes out of a retraction. Reputations become (sometimes irreparably) damaged, and in the worst scenarios, scientists lose their jobs.

You may think that the majority of retractions result from the realization of errors in data collection or analysis. Or at least, that’s what journals want you to believe. A survey published in PNAS shows that some journals attempt to hide the true reasons for retraction by posting “incomplete, uninformative or misleading retraction announcements." The survey found that deliberate misconduct accounted for a whopping 43.4% of retractions in the Life Sciences category that were documented on PubMed. "True” errors accounted for 21.3%.

To those scientists who stick to the straight and narrow, I think you’ll take a liking to Retraction Watch, a blog dedicated to monitoring and highlighting paper retractions from journals, both big and small. I was introduced to this blog by a graduate student in my lab, and I think it’s a fantastic concept. It’s one of those things on the internet that are unintentionally humourous… unless of course, your name shows up.

I wouldn’t say Retraction Watch is a guilty pleasure of mine, but it *is* oddly satisfying to read… even thought it is quite sad. All these instances of plagiarism, incorrect conclusions, error-filled analyses, fraudulent data, manipulated images, fabricated blots, and paper duplications. Wow.