The Center For Scientific Integrity The mission of the Center for Scientific Integrity, the parent organization of Retraction Watch, is to promote transparency and integrity in science and scientific publishing, and to disseminate best practices and increase efficiency in science. The goals of the Center fall under four broad areas: A database of retractions, expressions of concern and related publishing events, generated by the work of Retraction Watch. The database will be freely available to scientists, scholars and anyone else interested in analyzing the information. Long-form, larger-impact writing, including magazine-length articles, reports and books. Scholarship on scientific integrity and incentives in science. Aid and assistance to groups and individuals whose interests in transparency and accountability intersect with ours, and who could benefit from shared expertise and resources. The Center is a 501(c)3 non-profit. Its work has been funded by generous grants from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, and the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Trust. Learn more about our Board of Directors here. And read our 2021 tax return here, our 2020 tax return here, our 2019 tax return here, our 2018 tax return here, our 2017 tax return here, our 2016 tax return here, our 2015 tax return here, and our 2014 tax return here.
That is what the center does. It is NOT what you do. You are not strengthening science or the public view of science when all you do is cite the miniscule number of mistakes that have been found and dealt with.
You share RESULTS. You don't share their activity. Presenting some failed papers found by others can not POSSIBLY be considered supporting science.
What people are saying about Retraction Watch ". . . . Columbia Journalism Review Regret the Error columnist Craig Silverman calls Retraction Watch “a new blog that should be required reading for anyone interested in scientific journalism or the issue of accuracy.” “Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus are two geeks who set up a website called Retraction Watch because it was clear that retractions are often handled badly,” writes Ben Goldacre in his Bad Science column in the Guardian. He concludes: “Eyeballs are an excellent disinfectant: you should read Retraction Watch.” Retraction Watch is a “somewhat addictive” blog, writes radiation oncology journal editor-in-chief Anthony Zeitman. A “fascinating and worthwhile blog,” writes Andrew Revkin in Dot Earth, the New York Times’ environmental blog. Revkin has also called Retraction Watch “invaluable.”. . . . "
What you post is from that web site stating what THEIR objectives are. That is judged by what that actually do. Then, you post that people like what THEY do. And, so do I. BUT... YOU get to be judged by what YOU do. And, copy/pasting problems discovered by that cite can not in any way be construed as supportive of science. You don't even mention what an INFINITESIMAL percent of papers found worth or retraction. >>If you want to turn this thread into something supportive of science: Point out the STARTLINGLY few errors made compare to the more than the nearly 2 million papers written each year.
"Dog bites man" is not news. Why write a blog about retractions? Post by Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus The unfolding drama of Anil Potti — a Duke researcher who posed as a Rhodes Scholar and appears to have invented key statistical analyses in a study of how breast cancer responds to chemotherapy — has sent ripples of angst through the cancer community. Potti’s antics prompted editors of The Lancet Oncology to issue an “expression of concern” — a Britishism that might be better expressed as “Holy ****!” — about the validity of a 2007 paper in their journal by Potti and others. Unlike newspapers, which strive for celerity as much as accuracy, science journals have the luxury of time. Thorough vetting, through editorial boards, peer reviewers and other filters, is the coin of the realm. And yet mistakes happen. Sometimes these slips are merely technical, requiring nothing more than an erratum notice calling attention to a backwards figure or an incorrect address for reprints. Less often but far more important are the times when the blunders require that an entire article be pulled. For a glossary of the spectrum between erratum and retraction — including expression of concern — see this piece, commissioned by one of us, Ivan, while he was at The Scientist. Retractions are born of many mothers. Fraud is the most titillating reason, and mercifully the most rare, but when it happens the results can be devastating. Consider the case of Scott Reuben, a prodigiously dishonest anesthesiologist whose fabrications led to the retraction of more than a score of papers and deeply rattled an entire medical specialty. (One of us, Adam, broke that story.) So why write a blog on retractions? First, science takes justifiable pride in the fact that it is self-correcting — most of the time. Usually, that just means more or better data, not fraud or mistakes that would require a retraction. But when a retraction is necessary, how long does that self-correction take? The Wakefield retraction, for example, was issued 12 years after the original study, and six years after serious questions had been raised publicly by journalist Brian Deer. Retractions are therefore a window into the scientific process. Second, retractions are not often well-publicized. Sure, there are the high-profile cases such as Reuben’s and Wakefield’s. But most retractions live in obscurity in Medline and other databases. That means those who funded the retracted research — often taxpayers — aren’t particularly likely to find out about them. Nor are investors always likely to hear about retractions on basic science papers whose findings may have formed the basis for companies into which they pour dollars. So we hope this blog will form an informal repository for the retractions we find, and might even spur the creation of a retraction database such as the one called for here by K.M Korpela. Third, they’re often the clues to great stories about fraud or other malfeasance, as Adam learned when he chased down the Reuben story. The reverse can also be true. The Cancer Letter’s expose of Potti and his fake Rhodes Scholarship is what led his co-authors to remind The Lancet Oncology of their concerns, and then the editors to issue their expression of concern. And they can even lead to lawsuits for damaged reputations. If highlighting retractions will give journalists more tools to uncover fraud and misuse of funds, we’re happy to help. And if those stories are appropriate for our respective news outlets, you’ll only read about them on Retraction Watch once we’ve covered them there. Finally, we’re interested in whether journals are consistent. How long do they wait before printing a retraction? What requires one? How much of a public announcement, if any, do they make? Does a journal with a low rate of retractions have a better peer review and editing process, or is it just sweeping more mistakes under the rug? These are the sorts of things we’ll cover when we write about a particular retraction, and we hope they’ll form the basis of larger discussions of the obligations of journals. The two of us — both with experience covering science and medicine for the consumer as well as trade press — seem to come across these issues often. The experience one of us, Ivan, has had with Embargo Watch suggests that a blog is a great forum for such conversations. While any particular Retraction Watch post will only carry one of our bylines, we will both contribute to all posts. A few researchers have studied the issues we plan to raise here. For example, a 2008 paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics found that “the rate of retractions remains low but is increasing” and that: Although retractions are on average occurring sooner after publication than in the past, citation analysis shows that they are not being recognised by subsequent users of the work. Findings suggest that editors and institutional officials are taking more responsibility for correcting the scientific record but that reasons published in the retraction notice are not always reliable. More aggressive means of notification to the scientific community appear to be necessary. Those sound like great arguments for Retraction Watch.
This is just one more ridiculous dodge. You claim you are supporting science. However, you can not find even ONE WAY in which your posts could be construed as support for science.
Pointing out the few mistakes identified by those searching for mistakes DOES NOT support science. All you are doing is to PROMOTE the miniscule number of errors that DO NOT represent science. Plus, you refuse to EVER point out how rare these cases are - how monumentally GOOD the record of science actually is. What you do has NOTHING AT ALL to do with promoting or defending science.
It's also irrefutable. And, that is why you have NEVER suggested what it is that makes you think that this thread supports science.
And yet, actual data and records disproves about 90% ( or more) of the "science" being peddled today. Actual recorded data and trends derived from that data outclasses models that fail to correlate to actual data. Science based on historical data is far more reliable that theories derived from questionable models that have trouble coming close to history or current actual climate.
Your claim is not addressed by this thread and it's constant listing of papers noted by Retraction Watch to have been retracted. Hays claims that he is SUPPORTING SCIENCE. Nothing that he does on this particular thread supports science it any way. In fact, he supports YOUR view that science is pretty much total crap.
As for your claim that science is 90% crap - Please remember that scientists the world over do not EVEN SLIGHTLY support your claim. You are projecting a conspiracy theory for which you do not have ANY support or evidence. Of course, we do have media that are crap at consuming science, and thus make statements that don't even correlate to the studies they claim they are reporting on.
To me "supporting science" means taking a balanced approach to the issues. As I said above while we have direct knowledge of climate for eons in the past our ability to predict its behavior in the future is far less certain. Even daily or weekly weather predictions are far from certainty. To me ignoring the data from the past because of some coarsely constructed "model" is iffy at best. Looking at the scientific method the results of models seems to me to be the hypothesis that is to be proved/disproved, rather than as the result of the experiment.
Yeah, they do. If you look at any of the stuff Hays posts most of it comes from heavily degreed, experienced scientists. Again, Hays posts overflows with all that. And the Media almost uniformly echos your posts.
the "seed oils are good for you" myth is still going strong - big money behind those myths not to mention the cholesterol myth it takes years and years for the truth to come out
Science doesn't need to be promoted or defended. In the end, it either works or it doesn't. If it works, funding continues largely in the hope of potential commercialization. If it doesn't, the funding goes away (usually anyways. Unless it's something politically useful like "climate change") and with it the impetuous to continue to pursue a dead end. That is truly how science works. Always in pursuit of useful breakthroughs. Not getting published.
OK, but, publishing is a big deal for a scientist. Climatology gets a lot of funding, because the possible ramification in the real world are significant. If there were a change in gatekeeping, I'd probably be pushing for significantly more duplication by independent groups. Unfortunately, that's not particularly rewarded today.
