Scientific papers can get a lot of attention when they're first published, but it's rarely news when they're retracted - as they occasionally are - years later. That's a problem, since journalists and even other scientists often continue to reference the discredited research.
Retraction Watch, a new blog from Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky, MD, seeks to remedy the situation. The Columbia Journalism Review reported yesterday:
Though the site just launched this week, the duo appear to have a lot of material to work with. “We’re not working with a deficit,” Oransky says by phone.
Along with recent retractions, they’ll dip into the deep well of historical recalls and highlight the notable and nasty. In a larger sense, though, they hope to draw attention to the issues related to retractions.
“One of messages we hope make clear is that a lot of what we’re looking for is inconsistency,” he says. “ Do you always do the same thing [with retractions] based on the last time you did it? That’s one of the major things I look for.”
