The Retraction Watch FAQ, including comments policy

We tend to get certain questions over and over, so we figured we’d gather the answers in one place. We’ll add to this list as other common questions come up. You may also find it useful to read our first post, “Why write a blog about retractions?”

Why do you guys do this?

Good question. Read our first post.

Who funds you?

In December 2014, the MacArthur Foundation gave us a generous grant to continue our work and build a database of retractions. The Arnold Foundation has been funding us since August 2015, and the Helmsley Trust since November 2015. All of these grants have ended, so we rely on readers’ support.

More recently, our journalism has also been funded by a generous grant from the WoodNext Foundation. On the database side, the acquisition of The Retraction Watch Database by Crossref provides sustainability.

I suspect misconduct in a paper. What should I do?

Read this.

Great, but I need more specific advice than that. Can you help?

While we understand that the rules, procedures, and varying practices by journals, institutions, funding agencies and others can be confusing, or even demoralizing, we can’t offer advice in specific cases. We’re a journalism organization, and offering suggestions to people involved in a developing or ongoing story would be like a business reporter recommending stocks. Neither can we advocate for or against a retraction. Our editorial independence must come first, or we lose credibility. We appreciate your understanding, and will suggest other resources when feasible. We may also ask if you’d provide documents and other material so that we can cover the story.

Why was my comment not approved?

We are huge fans of Retraction Watch commenters. They broaden our posts, send us tips, and correct us when we get things wrong. Without them, the site would be a shadow of itself. However, we have recently found ourselves having to edit ad hominem attacks out of comments, unapprove other comments, and contact some commenters to remind them of what’s appropriate.

It may not be clear to those who feel the need to resort to such personal attacks that they destroy the discourse that we and others have worked so hard to build on Retraction Watch, but it is abundantly clear to us and many others. The same goes for unfounded allegations and unverified facts.

We will not tolerate these sorts of attacks, allegations, and unverified facts — a category that includes speculation, whether about what might have happened, or about the mindset of the people involved. To repeat: If verifying your comment requires mind-reading or knowing their motivations, it it unlikely to be approved. We will not edit comments, and will not approve any that contain material that violates this policy, even if it is a small part of a larger comment. While that means useful information may not be posted if it is included in a comment that violates these guidelines, users are welcome to rewrite comments so that they conform to our policy. They are also welcome to contact us — using the email addresses provided in our About pages — to ask why a given comment was not approved. If instead they choose to leave a comment asking why another was not approved, we may respond, time permitting, provided that they used a working email address.

There’s a really important retraction in my field from January 2010. I can’t believe you guys haven’t covered it!

We launched Retraction Watch in August 2010, and although we didn’t predict this, it’s been a struggle to even keep up with retractions as they happen. While we occasionally dip into history in our “Best Of” series, realistically we don’t want to fall even further behind. If we ever have the resources to grow the site, this will be one of our priorities.

Why are so many of the retractions you cover from the life sciences?

There are a number of reasons for this. The two most important are that 1) we’re both medical reporters in our day jobs, so our sources and knowledge base are both deeper in the life sciences and 2) there are more papers published in the life sciences than in other areas. We’d love your help beefing up our physical sciences section, so keep those tips coming.

Everyone agrees that this paper has to be retracted. Why haven’t you covered it?

Just like retractions from the past, this is a resource issue. We wholeheartedly agree it’s important to check out tips — anonymous or not — about potentially dodgy papers. But doing that right would require a much larger team, so we’ve decided that publicizing retractions that do happen — and finding out why papers were retracted, not always a simple task — was a better use of our efforts.

Is there a reliable database of retractions?

Yes, we’ve built one.

How can I support your work?

Thanks for asking! We appreciate every reader and commenter, and that’s really enough for us. But if you’re so inclined, please send tips to [email protected]. And if you’re even more inclined, you can make a one-time tax-deductible contribution by PayPal or by Square, or a monthly tax-deductible donation by Paypal to support our work — and thanks! To send a check, make it out to “The Center For Scientific Integrity” and mail it to:

121 W. 36th St.
Suite 209
New York, NY 10018